1077-2626 © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Manuscript received 30 Apr. 2020; revised 31 July 2020; accepted 14 Aug. 2020.
Date of publication 27 Oct. 2020; date of current version 15 Jan. 2021.
Digital Object Identifier no. 10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030412
Sea of Genes:
A Reflection on Visualising Metagenomic Data for Museums
Keshav Dasu, Student Member, IEEE, Kwan-Liu Ma, Fellow, IEEE, Joyce Ma, and Jennifer Frazier
Abstract
—We examine the process of designing an exhibit to communicate scientific findings from a complex dataset and unfamiliar
domain to the public in a science museum. Our exhibit sought to communicate new lessons based on scientific findings from the
domain of metagenomics. This multi-user exhibit had three goals: (1) to inform the public about microbial communities and their daily
cycles; (2) to link microbes’ activity to the concept of gene expression; (3) and to highlight scientists’ use of gene expression data to
understand the role of microbes. To address these three goals, we derived visualization designs with three corresponding stories, each
corresponding to a goal. We present three successive rounds of design and evaluation of our attempts to convey these goals. We
could successfully present one story but had limited success with our second and third goals. This work presents a detailed account of
an attempt to explain tightly coupled relationships through storytelling and animation in a multi-user, informal learning environment to a
public with varying prior knowledge on the domain and identify lessons for future design.
Index Terms—Narrative visualization, storytelling, animation, evaluation, user studies, informal learning environments
1INTRODUCTION
Visualizations are increasingly central to the practice of science. They
are used across a range of scientific disciplines to analyze phenomena,
such as changes in microbiomes and shifts in climate. There have
been several large-scale efforts to develop scientific and information
visualizations for the public: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s (NOAA’s) Science on a Sphere presents earth systems
datasets such as tsunamis, climate models, and sea surface temper-
ature on a large spherical display for aquariums and museums [52];
DeepTree [8] visualizes evolutionary data for exploration on a tabletop
interface in natural history museums; MacroScope [69] ports a range
of visualizations into a large interactive display for a wide range of
academic and museum settings; and Living Liquid [34, 45] created
interactive visualizations for a hands-on museum environment. Each of
these projects, as well as many others [23, 30, 66], have contributed to
our understanding of the opportunities and limitations of visualizations
in museum settings. However, these projects visualized concepts such
as currents, weather, evolutionary trees, and migration paths that the
public has familiarity with.
This paper examines the challenges of creating a museum exhibit
from a complex dataset from an emerging and unfamiliar field: metage-
nomics. Metagenomics, the characterization of all the genetic data in a
sample, is revolutionizing our understanding of microbes. Researchers
use these data to determine what species are present, what functions
they perform, how these functions change over time, and infer how
microbes interact [14]. Metagenomics is one of the primary ways re-
searchers study microbes. Microbes play a central role in almost all
aspects of life on earth [14]. Ocean microbes use energy from the sun to
produce half the oxygen we breathe and drive our climate; soil microbes
impact the food we eat; and scientists are beginning to understand the
complex and critical roles billions of microbes living in our bodies
have on our health [14]. Despite the significance of metagenomics to
scientific research, few efforts have introduced these data to the public
through interactive visualization. Instead, exhibits [17, 55, 58] rely on
electron micrographs and graphics of microbes.
• Keshav Dasu is with UC Davis. E-mail: kdasu@ucdavis.edu.
• Kwan-Liu Ma is with UC Davis. E-mail: ma@ucdavis.edu.
• Joyce Ma is with The Exploratorium. E-mail: jma@exploratorium.edu.
• Jennifer Frazier is with The Exploratorium. E-mail:
jfrazier@exploratorium.edu.
Fig. 1. Museum visitors using the Sea of Genes exhibit in the Life
Sciences Gallery of the Exploratorium in San Francisco.
Even though the visualization field has explored narrative elements
as a strategy for engaging users with complex data [11, 12, 68], there
has been limited work on visualization exhibits that present complex
content from an unfamiliar domain in a museum setting. Unfamiliar
domain, in this context, refers to the targeted audience having little
prior knowledge of the domain. We examine the application of narra-
tive visualization strategies and animation effects to reduce complexity
and create familiarity when presenting scientific findings through a
museum exhibit. The exhibit is called Sea of Genes. First, we provide
a detailed documentation of the design process for developing such
an exhibit and the challenges we faced compared to our prior exhibit
design experiences. We then address limitations and constraints of
designing a visualization exhibit in an informal learning environment
and point out directions for research in this space. This work presents a
detailed account of an attempt to explain tightly-coupled relationships
through storytelling and animation in a multi-user, informal learning
environment to the public with varying prior knowledge on the domain.
We discuss takeaways and provide guidance for studying science mu-
seum exhibits, which we believe is especially valuable to both the field
of metagenomics and other scientific domains.
2R
ELATED WORK
Extensive work has been done on the application of narrative devices
and visualization of complex data. There has also been research on the
use of animation for teaching unfamiliar concepts. With Sea of Genes
we paired principles from both educational animation and narrative vi-
sualization to develop an exhibit that could successfully present content
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS, VOL. 27, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2021 935
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF BATH. Downloaded on May 13,2021 at 22:16:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
936 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS, VOL. 27, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2021
Fig. 2. Design process (a) Photo capturing a discussion from the initial brainstorm session with a scientist from C-MORE. (b) Sketches of microbe
behavior inferred from genomic data at the brainstorm. (c) At the end of the brainstorm we adpoted a sketch of Prototype 1 produced by Stamen
Design. (d) Prototype 1 still. (e) Prototype 1 on the floor of the Exploratorium during evaluation.
a lead data scientist and marine microbiologist who provided datasets
and content expertise. Stamen Design provided a digital graphic de-
signer and visualization designer to provide expertise in public-facing
commercial visualization design and public installation.
3.1 The Dataset
The data used for Sea of Genes were collected and analyzed by oceanog-
raphers affiliated with the Center for Microbial Oceanography: Re-
search and Education (C-MORE) at the University of Hawaii at Manoa
and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). A full
description of the data collection and analysis methods were published
in a series of articles [3, 4, 56] during 2014–2017.
The 2014–2015 samples were collected using an Environmental
Sampling Processor (ESP) [4, 56], a free-drifting sampling device that
collects environmental and genomic data at specified times in the ocean,
in this case, every 4 hours for 3 days. The 2017 samples were col-
lected every 4 hours for 4 days using Niskin bottles [3] deployed from
a research vessel. Planktonic microbial assemblages were collected
by passing seawater through a 0.22
µ
m pore-sized filter, preserved in
RNA later, and stored at -80
°
C within 24 hours of retrieval from the
instrument. RNA was extracted, cDNA was generated, and Illumina se-
quencing [3] was performed. Metatranscriptome reads were mapped to
ortholog clusters of proteins constructed from the phylogenetic groups
of interest. Function was assigned by KEGG Orthology annotation.
Read count tables were normalized to total read count, with thresh-
old set to achieve R2 value
>
0.8 using the R packages igraph and
WGCNA [40]. These count tables contained information about daily
patterns in microbes such as: time of collection, taxonomic assignment,
gene function and expression levels, and the peak time of expression.
From this, C-MORE and MBARI scientists were able to infer which
microbes were present, what functions they performed, and when those
functions occurred over the course of a 24 hour period. They provided
us access to these data sets and assisted in interpretation, (Figure 2a).
3.2 Hardware and Implementation
For Sea of Genes we decided to use an interactive touch table, which
has been shown to encourage collaboration and attract attention [32,
60, 63]. A feature of the museum context is the ability to support
social experiences [20]. Hinrichs et al.’s [31] findings suggest using a
large interactive display gives the visualization a presence within an
exhibition. These displays allow people to enjoy and participate from a
distance and decide whether to engage further. In our previous project
we used the Multitaction object-tracking table [45], which attracted
and engaged visitors with the visualization. We took advantage of the
social context of the museum by using a larger 3M 65” touch-table at
4k resolution as our exhibit display to accommodate either 6 visitors
interacting all around it or 3 visitors from one side.
To support an iterative development cycle, Sea of Genes is web-based
and written in ECMAScript 6, JavaScript 6. JavaScript is lightweight
and is suited for rapid prototyping. Each microbe had its own custom
sprite and a set of animated behaviors derived from their transcripts.
The transcripts were functionally annotated, and patterns of sequential
function were grouped into high level categories (e.g., genes involved
in preparing a cell to divide, then genes involved in the actual division).
The time of expression for each transcript was determined by the time of
day the sample was collected and the normalized amount of transcript
in the sample. Details on the visualization process are expanded upon
in Section 5. We provided a configuration file the museum staff can edit,
allowing them to modify parameters such as the number of microbes
and length of time for the 24hour period to cycle. To package for
distribution we used the open source software Electron by github.io [19].
For our own development we deployed the exhibit on OSX architecture.
4DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND EVALUATION METHODS
Interpreting metagenomic data requires understanding microbes, their
genes, and gene expression. To create an experience around this com-
plex dataset, we worked with C-MORE scientists to (1) synthesize
their research into a narrative comprised of three related stories, and
(2) apply techniques from established narrative frameworks to layer the
following three stories into a cohesive narrative:
S1. Microbial interactions occur in a predictable daily rhythm.
The first story conveyed to visitors that microbes form communi-
ties similar to larger organisms. The interactions and functions
these microbes perform during the day and night differ.
S2. Genes turn on and off according to a daily rhythm.
The sec-
ond story focused on how the microbial interactions and actions
in the first story are a result of the gene expressions of specific
genes, which control microbial function.
S3. Scientists collect data about the genes of microbes to make
sense of the temporal patterns in microbial functions.
The fi-
nal story was scientists collected data and identified the expressed
genes responsible for a microbial function.
These stories were the synthesis of the C-MORE scientists’ research
and, taken together, could provide the public an understanding of how
marine microbes are studied and what they do. From discussion with the
scientists we found S1 and S2 were closely related to one another, with
S2 explaining the molecular underpinnings of, or genetic expression
for, the behavior in S1. S3 further elaborates that scientists study S2 to
make sense of the temporal patterns in microbial interaction captured
in S1. In short, we needed to show the public (S1) microbes have
interactions that occur in a predictable daily rhythm which (S2) are
the result of gene expressions, and (S3) scientists analyze these gene
from both a complex dataset in an unfamiliar domain.
2.1 Value of Narratives
Kosara and Mackinlay [38] define a narrative as “a clearly defined path
that is composed of a sequence of ordered steps, containing either text,
images, visualizations, video, or any combination of the latter”. Each
step can be thought of as a story that relates the ‘who, where, when and
how’ of an event that occurred. The ordering of these steps creates the
narrative. How the order is set impacts its reception. Storytelling is the
activity of sharing a narrative. Theorists posit narratives are fundamen-
tal to human sensemaking [10] and intelligence [65]. Research [16] has
found stories help us connect and remember facts. The roles and forms
narratives may serve and can take in visualization continue to be active
areas of research. For example, Gershon and Page [24] discuss the
value of storytelling when developing applications. Segel and Heer [68]
provide a comprehensive review of narrative visualization as used by
online journalists. These works motivate the value of using narrative to
communicate concepts to the lay audience.
2.2 Narrative Frameworks
Many visualization researchers have analyzed and designed a number of
methodologies and frameworks to apply narrative techniques [24,35,38,
47, 68]. Narratives convey a message, enhance comprehension, make
transparent causality, increase engagement, and summarize and simplify
a complex message. The narrative visualization literature describes a
number of approaches on how to embed a narrative. Segel and Heers
case study of Gapminder Human Development Trends [68] explores
how narratives enable complex information to be comprehended quickly
by the user. Hullman and Diakopoulos [35] discuss a set of omission
techniques used for simplifying complex data. Lee et al. [42] describe
a process of working with data analysts to extract only what is relevant
to the story as well as how setting and device choice influence the
presentation of a story. These works provided insights for Sea of Genes
on how to use narrative to communicate lessons from the complex
metagenomic dataset. We expand on the current literature with how
the museum setting, especially a highly interactive one, affects the
presentation of a narrative.
Gershon and Page [24] contend conveying a story in general is more
effective when images are combined with text or data. While images
in themselves convey a lot of information, we need data and text to
reduce the ambiguity in the message. They also identify continuity as
an important element. Continuity may result from a causal flow that
also enables retention and recall. If a user perceives continuity, this
may also imply they have understood the causality. Our design must
focus on preserving the continuity between each step in our narrative,
since the sequence in which they are presented matters for our stories.
Segel and Heer [68] provide an overview of how visual elements
have been employed in traditional media such as comics, books, and
films to tell stories. Their focus is on the role of graphical elements
and interactivity in maintaining continuity in the flow of the narrative.
They identify author-driven and reader-driven as two polar extremes of
visualization. We contextualize these two terms for the museum setting
as designer-driven and visitor-driven. In a designer-driven approach, the
story is linear and the visitor has no control of the narrative. It presents
to the visitor a fixed sequence of events with which they can interact.
In a “pure” visitor-driven approach, there is no predefined narrative.
Instead, there is no fixed sequence of events, and the visitor would
select and order events to create a narrative. By blending these two
extremes in our own design, we seek to retain continuity and provide
visitors freedom to explore.
Narratives have been widely applied in history and art museums
to help visitors make personal connections to an object or a collec-
tion [5, 64]. A study [2] on the roles narratives play in interactive
science exhibits found enhancing exhibits with personal stories im-
proved the exhibit experience for visitors and helped create personal
connections to the content. However, adding stories seemed to reduce
the visitors’ physical interactions and explorations with the exhibit.
Similarly, a study [44] examining the use of narrative introduction to
describe the dataset visualized in an exhibit, found it did not improve
data exploration. Further study of narrative applied to interactive vi-
sualization is needed, examining its applicability and effectiveness in
communicating complex and unfamiliar content. We identified a set of
related stories, which we could present in layers. Sea of Genes provided
us with an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of applying the afore-
mentioned narrative strategies to breakdown a complex metagenomic
dataset to then present a layered story to the public.
2.3 Animation for Learners
Research on how animation affects learning has gone through two
eras of consideration. In the first era (1990’s), researchers studied
the impact animation has on learning by evaluating it next to static
graphics [28, 49, 73]. These studies report inconsistent or inconclusive
findings on the effects of animation on learning. In particular, although
Schnotz and Grzondziel [67] found animation performed better, it had
an interactive component [22] confounding the results. Tversky and
Morrison [73] were highly skeptical animations could be effective for
conveying complex systems. They suggest two principles to note as
conditions for an animation to be effective: Apprehension and Congru-
ence. The Apprehension principle states “the structure and content of
the external representation should be readily and accurately perceived.”
A drawback of animation is the perceptual and cognitive limitation of
processing a changing visualization, e.g. complex interactions may oc-
cur too quickly to be understood. The Congruence principle states “the
structure and content of the external representation should correspond
to the desired structure and content of the internal representation.” In
principle, animation should be effective for expressing changes. Most
animations violate these principles. People conceive a dynamic process
as a sequence of steps, thus violating the Congruence principle. In
order for an animation to be effective Tversky [73] believes animations
must explain rather than simply show.
Rather than comparing animations’ effectiveness to static graphics,
recent studies focus on understanding the cognitive processes involved
in processing dynamic visualizations and identifying the steps leading
to comprehension [1, 51]. Berney and Betrancourt [7] conduct a meta-
analysis on animation for learning and section the factors into three
main groups: (a) specific to the learners, (b) specific to the instructional
material, and (c) specific to the learning context. Studies [13, 37] that
address group (a), to which museum visitors belong, found varying prior
knowledge requires varying presentation forms to achieve a learning
task. Therefore, with Sea of Genes we need to consider other ways to
enforce the animation, which we detail in Section 5. Chanlin [13] found
animation enhanced both novice and experienced learners’ learning.
Specifically, for novices it helped facilitate learning of descriptive facts.
Berney and Betrancourt form a hypothesis based on Ploetzner and
Lowe’s [59] work that “well-designed” expository animations contain
all the elements needed to draw learners’ attention to the right place at
the right time. That is, our animation should facilitate directing visitors
attention to each point when necessary.
3S
EA OF GENES
Sea of Genes is a multi-user interactive visualization exhibit at the
Exploratorium, a science museum. The exhibit is within the Living
Systems Gallery of the museum, and uses a combination of animation
techniques and narrative elements to communicate three key stories
found in a metagenomic dataset of marine microbes:
• Microbial interactions occur in a predictable daily rhythm.
• Genes turn on and off according to a daily rhythm.
• Scientists collect data about the genes of microbes.
This exhibit was created through an interdisciplinary collaboration that
brought together expertise in academic and commercial visualization
practices, scientific research, and museum design and evaluation. The
Exploratorium led the collaboration and provided a curator, project
manager, writer, graphic design, exhibit designer, learning researcher,
and evaluators. A visualization group provided a graduate student and
professor to provide expertise in visualization and HCI research to
assist the exhibit design. The University of Hawaii at Manoa provided
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF BATH. Downloaded on May 13,2021 at 22:16:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
DASU ET AL.: SEA OF GENES: A REFLECTION ON VISUALISING METAGENOMIC DATA FOR MUSEUMS 937
Fig. 2. Design process (a) Photo capturing a discussion from the initial brainstorm session with a scientist from C-MORE. (b) Sketches of microbe
behavior inferred from genomic data at the brainstorm. (c) At the end of the brainstorm we adpoted a sketch of Prototype 1 produced by Stamen
Design. (d) Prototype 1 still. (e) Prototype 1 on the floor of the Exploratorium during evaluation.
a lead data scientist and marine microbiologist who provided datasets
and content expertise. Stamen Design provided a digital graphic de-
signer and visualization designer to provide expertise in public-facing
commercial visualization design and public installation.
3.1 The Dataset
The data used for Sea of Genes were collected and analyzed by oceanog-
raphers affiliated with the Center for Microbial Oceanography: Re-
search and Education (C-MORE) at the University of Hawaii at Manoa
and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). A full
description of the data collection and analysis methods were published
in a series of articles [3, 4, 56] during 2014–2017.
The 2014–2015 samples were collected using an Environmental
Sampling Processor (ESP) [4, 56], a free-drifting sampling device that
collects environmental and genomic data at specified times in the ocean,
in this case, every 4 hours for 3 days. The 2017 samples were col-
lected every 4 hours for 4 days using Niskin bottles [3] deployed from
a research vessel. Planktonic microbial assemblages were collected
by passing seawater through a 0.22
µ
m pore-sized filter, preserved in
RNA later, and stored at -80
°
C within 24 hours of retrieval from the
instrument. RNA was extracted, cDNA was generated, and Illumina se-
quencing [3] was performed. Metatranscriptome reads were mapped to
ortholog clusters of proteins constructed from the phylogenetic groups
of interest. Function was assigned by KEGG Orthology annotation.
Read count tables were normalized to total read count, with thresh-
old set to achieve R2 value
>
0.8 using the R packages igraph and
WGCNA [40]. These count tables contained information about daily
patterns in microbes such as: time of collection, taxonomic assignment,
gene function and expression levels, and the peak time of expression.
From this, C-MORE and MBARI scientists were able to infer which
microbes were present, what functions they performed, and when those
functions occurred over the course of a 24 hour period. They provided
us access to these data sets and assisted in interpretation, (Figure 2a).
3.2 Hardware and Implementation
For Sea of Genes we decided to use an interactive touch table, which
has been shown to encourage collaboration and attract attention [32,
60, 63]. A feature of the museum context is the ability to support
social experiences [20]. Hinrichs et al.’s [31] findings suggest using a
large interactive display gives the visualization a presence within an
exhibition. These displays allow people to enjoy and participate from a
distance and decide whether to engage further. In our previous project
we used the Multitaction object-tracking table [45], which attracted
and engaged visitors with the visualization. We took advantage of the
social context of the museum by using a larger 3M 65” touch-table at
4k resolution as our exhibit display to accommodate either 6 visitors
interacting all around it or 3 visitors from one side.
To support an iterative development cycle, Sea of Genes is web-based
and written in ECMAScript 6, JavaScript 6. JavaScript is lightweight
and is suited for rapid prototyping. Each microbe had its own custom
sprite and a set of animated behaviors derived from their transcripts.
The transcripts were functionally annotated, and patterns of sequential
function were grouped into high level categories (e.g., genes involved
in preparing a cell to divide, then genes involved in the actual division).
The time of expression for each transcript was determined by the time of
day the sample was collected and the normalized amount of transcript
in the sample. Details on the visualization process are expanded upon
in Section 5. We provided a configuration file the museum staff can edit,
allowing them to modify parameters such as the number of microbes
and length of time for the 24hour period to cycle. To package for
distribution we used the open source software Electron by github.io [19].
For our own development we deployed the exhibit on OSX architecture.
4DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND EVALUATION METHODS
Interpreting metagenomic data requires understanding microbes, their
genes, and gene expression. To create an experience around this com-
plex dataset, we worked with C-MORE scientists to (1) synthesize
their research into a narrative comprised of three related stories, and
(2) apply techniques from established narrative frameworks to layer the
following three stories into a cohesive narrative:
S1. Microbial interactions occur in a predictable daily rhythm.
The first story conveyed to visitors that microbes form communi-
ties similar to larger organisms. The interactions and functions
these microbes perform during the day and night differ.
S2. Genes turn on and off according to a daily rhythm.
The sec-
ond story focused on how the microbial interactions and actions
in the first story are a result of the gene expressions of specific
genes, which control microbial function.
S3. Scientists collect data about the genes of microbes to make
sense of the temporal patterns in microbial functions.
The fi-
nal story was scientists collected data and identified the expressed
genes responsible for a microbial function.
These stories were the synthesis of the C-MORE scientists’ research
and, taken together, could provide the public an understanding of how
marine microbes are studied and what they do. From discussion with the
scientists we found S1 and S2 were closely related to one another, with
S2 explaining the molecular underpinnings of, or genetic expression
for, the behavior in S1. S3 further elaborates that scientists study S2 to
make sense of the temporal patterns in microbial interaction captured
in S1. In short, we needed to show the public (S1) microbes have
interactions that occur in a predictable daily rhythm which (S2) are
the result of gene expressions, and (S3) scientists analyze these gene
from both a complex dataset in an unfamiliar domain.
2.1 Value of Narratives
Kosara and Mackinlay [38] define a narrative as “a clearly defined path
that is composed of a sequence of ordered steps, containing either text,
images, visualizations, video, or any combination of the latter”. Each
step can be thought of as a story that relates the ‘who, where, when and
how’ of an event that occurred. The ordering of these steps creates the
narrative. How the order is set impacts its reception. Storytelling is the
activity of sharing a narrative. Theorists posit narratives are fundamen-
tal to human sensemaking [10] and intelligence [65]. Research [16] has
found stories help us connect and remember facts. The roles and forms
narratives may serve and can take in visualization continue to be active
areas of research. For example, Gershon and Page [24] discuss the
value of storytelling when developing applications. Segel and Heer [68]
provide a comprehensive review of narrative visualization as used by
online journalists. These works motivate the value of using narrative to
communicate concepts to the lay audience.
2.2 Narrative Frameworks
Many visualization researchers have analyzed and designed a number of
methodologies and frameworks to apply narrative techniques [24,35,38,
47, 68]. Narratives convey a message, enhance comprehension, make
transparent causality, increase engagement, and summarize and simplify
a complex message. The narrative visualization literature describes a
number of approaches on how to embed a narrative. Segel and Heers
case study of Gapminder Human Development Trends [68] explores
how narratives enable complex information to be comprehended quickly
by the user. Hullman and Diakopoulos [35] discuss a set of omission
techniques used for simplifying complex data. Lee et al. [42] describe
a process of working with data analysts to extract only what is relevant
to the story as well as how setting and device choice influence the
presentation of a story. These works provided insights for Sea of Genes
on how to use narrative to communicate lessons from the complex
metagenomic dataset. We expand on the current literature with how
the museum setting, especially a highly interactive one, affects the
presentation of a narrative.
Gershon and Page [24] contend conveying a story in general is more
effective when images are combined with text or data. While images
in themselves convey a lot of information, we need data and text to
reduce the ambiguity in the message. They also identify continuity as
an important element. Continuity may result from a causal flow that
also enables retention and recall. If a user perceives continuity, this
may also imply they have understood the causality. Our design must
focus on preserving the continuity between each step in our narrative,
since the sequence in which they are presented matters for our stories.
Segel and Heer [68] provide an overview of how visual elements
have been employed in traditional media such as comics, books, and
films to tell stories. Their focus is on the role of graphical elements
and interactivity in maintaining continuity in the flow of the narrative.
They identify author-driven and reader-driven as two polar extremes of
visualization. We contextualize these two terms for the museum setting
as designer-driven and visitor-driven. In a designer-driven approach, the
story is linear and the visitor has no control of the narrative. It presents
to the visitor a fixed sequence of events with which they can interact.
In a “pure” visitor-driven approach, there is no predefined narrative.
Instead, there is no fixed sequence of events, and the visitor would
select and order events to create a narrative. By blending these two
extremes in our own design, we seek to retain continuity and provide
visitors freedom to explore.
Narratives have been widely applied in history and art museums
to help visitors make personal connections to an object or a collec-
tion [5, 64]. A study [2] on the roles narratives play in interactive
science exhibits found enhancing exhibits with personal stories im-
proved the exhibit experience for visitors and helped create personal
connections to the content. However, adding stories seemed to reduce
the visitors’ physical interactions and explorations with the exhibit.
Similarly, a study [44] examining the use of narrative introduction to
describe the dataset visualized in an exhibit, found it did not improve
data exploration. Further study of narrative applied to interactive vi-
sualization is needed, examining its applicability and effectiveness in
communicating complex and unfamiliar content. We identified a set of
related stories, which we could present in layers. Sea of Genes provided
us with an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of applying the afore-
mentioned narrative strategies to breakdown a complex metagenomic
dataset to then present a layered story to the public.
2.3 Animation for Learners
Research on how animation affects learning has gone through two
eras of consideration. In the first era (1990’s), researchers studied
the impact animation has on learning by evaluating it next to static
graphics [28, 49, 73]. These studies report inconsistent or inconclusive
findings on the effects of animation on learning. In particular, although
Schnotz and Grzondziel [67] found animation performed better, it had
an interactive component [22] confounding the results. Tversky and
Morrison [73] were highly skeptical animations could be effective for
conveying complex systems. They suggest two principles to note as
conditions for an animation to be effective: Apprehension and Congru-
ence. The Apprehension principle states “the structure and content of
the external representation should be readily and accurately perceived.”
A drawback of animation is the perceptual and cognitive limitation of
processing a changing visualization, e.g. complex interactions may oc-
cur too quickly to be understood. The Congruence principle states “the
structure and content of the external representation should correspond
to the desired structure and content of the internal representation.” In
principle, animation should be effective for expressing changes. Most
animations violate these principles. People conceive a dynamic process
as a sequence of steps, thus violating the Congruence principle. In
order for an animation to be effective Tversky [73] believes animations
must explain rather than simply show.
Rather than comparing animations’ effectiveness to static graphics,
recent studies focus on understanding the cognitive processes involved
in processing dynamic visualizations and identifying the steps leading
to comprehension [1, 51]. Berney and Betrancourt [7] conduct a meta-
analysis on animation for learning and section the factors into three
main groups: (a) specific to the learners, (b) specific to the instructional
material, and (c) specific to the learning context. Studies [13, 37] that
address group (a), to which museum visitors belong, found varying prior
knowledge requires varying presentation forms to achieve a learning
task. Therefore, with Sea of Genes we need to consider other ways to
enforce the animation, which we detail in Section 5. Chanlin [13] found
animation enhanced both novice and experienced learners’ learning.
Specifically, for novices it helped facilitate learning of descriptive facts.
Berney and Betrancourt form a hypothesis based on Ploetzner and
Lowe’s [59] work that “well-designed” expository animations contain
all the elements needed to draw learners’ attention to the right place at
the right time. That is, our animation should facilitate directing visitors
attention to each point when necessary.
3S
EA OF GENES
Sea of Genes is a multi-user interactive visualization exhibit at the
Exploratorium, a science museum. The exhibit is within the Living
Systems Gallery of the museum, and uses a combination of animation
techniques and narrative elements to communicate three key stories
found in a metagenomic dataset of marine microbes:
• Microbial interactions occur in a predictable daily rhythm.
• Genes turn on and off according to a daily rhythm.
• Scientists collect data about the genes of microbes.
This exhibit was created through an interdisciplinary collaboration that
brought together expertise in academic and commercial visualization
practices, scientific research, and museum design and evaluation. The
Exploratorium led the collaboration and provided a curator, project
manager, writer, graphic design, exhibit designer, learning researcher,
and evaluators. A visualization group provided a graduate student and
professor to provide expertise in visualization and HCI research to
assist the exhibit design. The University of Hawaii at Manoa provided
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF BATH. Downloaded on May 13,2021 at 22:16:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
938 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS, VOL. 27, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2021
Fig. 3. (a) Sea of Genes Prototype 1 visualized four main microbial characters depicted as 4 unique icons.This visualization was tested on a large
tabletop display. (b) Stills of the central animation at different times of day. (c) Cards providing information for each microbe.
and offer some familiarity for visitors. The model simulates a 24 hour
period showing the functions each microbe performed during this time.
The objective of Prototype 1 was to see if visitors could follow
S1
. If
they were able to do so then we would try to layer in
S2
and finally
S3
.
We chose to have a central animation based on prior work [13] indi-
cating that animations could be effective for conveying these concepts
to novices,
C2
. However, animations, when designed for teaching those
with varying domain knowledge, require varying the presentation forms
to be effective in achieving a desired learning task [13, 37]. We decided
to layer the three related stories in an exhibit, we sought to present
each story within a form, starting with
S1
as an animation. We chose
S1
to be the focus of the animation since of the three stories it could
have the most familiarity with visitors [43] and, as the first story, it is
the foundation upon which the other stories are built. This animation
would serve as our entry point [33], and be the centerpiece to attract
visitors to the exhibit. This would also provide us with the opportunity
to determine if a “well-designed” expository animation actually con-
tains all the elements needed to draw the learners’ attention to the right
place at the right time [7] allowing visitors to quickly decode (
C3
) and
understand
S1
. With Prototype 1 our intent was to have a minimalist an-
imation. Our animation (Figure 3a) was driven by our curated model of
microbial interaction and portrayed microbes as icons interacting with
one another. This animation had three main elements: (1) Four main
microbial characters (Figure 3c), (2) A background which transitioned
from light to dark blue (Figure 3b) and back over a set period of 45
seconds (
C3
) to illustrate a 24 hour period, and (3) Control panels that
described each of the four microbes (Figure 3a). The control panels
were static and only provided textual information about each microbe.
We included a simple visitor interaction of tapping on the control panel
to inject viruses into the pool. Our goal was to communicate
S1
using
an animation that showed the functions of microbes during a 24 hour
period informed by metagenomic data.
The evaluation for Prototype 1 sought to determine if visitors could
interpret this first story from the animation. The exhibit was placed
near other exhibits that focused on microorganisms. One was an exhibit
on the microbes that live in the termite gut, with a live microscope
view of these microbes. The other was a Winogradsky panel that shows
microbial diversity and discusses energy production. While there was
not a designed exhibition, this context seemed to best support the
content of Sea of Genes.
To recruit participants for the evaluation, an evaluator stood near
the exhibit and approached every third person as they walked passed
a predetermined imaginary line near the exhibit. If the systematically
selected visitor was with a group, the whole group was invited to
participate as well. Consenting visitors were asked to use the exhibit.
Because it was an early prototype and not all of the labels or the touch
interactivity was implemented, the evaluator verbally described these
aspects to the participants:
Evaluator:
This exhibit shows how microscopic life behave in the
ocean. The water changes color from dark, for night, to light blue,
for day. You can release different organisms into the water to see
what they do. The touch is not working yet, so just let me know
which organism you want, and I’ll release them for you.
When participants indicated that they were done, the evaluator asked
the visitor who interacted the most within their group a set of questions
designed to gauge usability and comprehension. In this evaluation, we
talked with a total of 38 visitors
1
over the course of four days. When
we asked visitors what they found interesting, over 55% of them talked
about the interactions between microbes in general, with a minority
(6 out of 38 visitors) mentioning a specific interaction shown in the
animation, for example:
Visitor03:
[It was interesting] infection of Cyanophage to Prochloro-
coccus, and SAR116 eating. How it [infected Prochlorococcus]
burst and a bunch came out.
Visitor37:
One thing was SAR116 and Prochlorococcus working to-
gether [was interesting]. [I] noticed the SAR116 were going
by Prochlorococcus and right after the Prochlorococcus were
making sugar.
However, a majority (58%) of the visitors found parts of the anima-
tion confusing. There were multiple reasons visitors had difficulty
interpreting this animation. First, a few visitors complained that in the
animation, the microbes’ small size and thus poor resolution made it
difficult to distinguish one type from another, e.g.:
Visitor01:
Some stuff was really small, so you couldn’t see what was
happening
Visitor17:
These [Prochlorococcus] in particular appear to move
randomly. A better graphic representation would be helpful.
Second, visitors could not decipher parts of the animation to make
sense of microbial behavior, e.g.,:
Visitor24: No idea what those guys [Crocosphaera] do.
Visitor29: Didn’t understand what SAR116 were doing.
This was particularly the case when microbes appeared and disappeared
as they were born and died, e.g.:
Visitor01:
Some would disappear, especially this one [SAR116]. It
was hard to see why they disappeared.
A smaller number (29%) of visitors noticed differences between day
and night, even though the evaluator described the transition at the
beginning of their exhibit use.
Visitor38:
The light and dark. Seeing difference between what’s there
and thrives in the light versus dark.
1
The demographic breakdown of the evaluation participants was: 18 adults,
12 teenagers, and 8 children, with 20 females and 18 males.
expression data to identify temporal patterns. How we present these
stories is constrained by the considerations of an informal learning
environment in an interactive science museum.
4.1 Museum Considerations
Museums are informal learning environments referred to as “designed
environments” in which exhibits are developed to help structure visitor
experiences, in line with institutional goals and values [53]. In addi-
tion to facilitating visitor engagement and comprehension of complex
datasets, the team needed to ensure the exhibit design considered the
informal learning context. The following considerations were identified
and informed by our collaborators at the Exploratorium, which we used
to constrain and guide our design process.
C1. Free-choice learning environment. As with other types of infor-
mal learning environments, the experiences in museums, as compared
to the formal setting of the classroom, are motivated and guided by
personal interests rather than compulsory requirements [2, 5]. This is
often referred to as a free-choice learning environment. In such an
environment visitors may not encounter or even choose to attend to
our exhibit. The exhibit design must consider methods to attract and
retain visitor attention. As free-choice learning environments [53],
museums employ a variety of techniques to attract and sustain visitors
interests and engagement at exhibits. For example, DeepTree [15], an
interactive visualization of the tree of life had strategically placed fea-
tures which invited attention and used the interactive table to encourage
collaboration. Likewise, the interactive plankton visualization in the
Living Liquid project [45], used an animated visualization paired with
a tangible interface to captivate visitors interest and serve as gateway
for exploration of plankton patterns.
C2. Public comprehension.
The audience we design for is the visiting
public, who are typically not domain experts. Since our museum attracts
a diverse audience we do not know where, on the spectrum of novice
to expert, our visitor’s prior knowledge is. Furthermore, the open space
layout of the exhibits means there are no guarantees a visitor will come
to the Sea of Genes exhibit with the prerequisite knowledge learned
from a prior exhibit [6]. Therefore, we cannot assume familiarity with
the underlying dataset or domain itself. Similarly, we cannot assume
representations which experts use for interpreting the data will translate
to the public [15]. However, we should be mindful to not trivialize
the experience to exclude experts or people who want to explore the
content matter deeply.
C3. Readily decipherable.
When designing an exhibit in a science
museum there is a need for fast decoding and ready interpretation of the
visualization [46]. In the Exploratoriums Traits of Life exhibit collection
holding times at a signle exhibit ranged from 12 to 149 seconds [29].
In other words, visitors have a short dwell time at exhibits and within
this time they need to decode what is visually presented. Our design
should thus accelerate this decode process.
C4. Support Multi-user Interaction.
Exhibit design must allow for
multiple visitors to view or interact. This comes in both the need to
support social groups who frequent the museum and facilitate collab-
orative learning [21]. There are also logistical reasons for multi-user
exhibits, such as preventing queues and facilitating visitor movement
in the overall exhibit space, and providing more visitors access to an
exhibit. Designing for multiple users has several implications. Because
we cannot assume a visitor will come to the exhibit in its initial state, the
design should ensure a visitor’s can interpret and interact with the ex-
hibit regardless of the state of the visualization. Furthermore, a visitor’s
interaction with the exhibit must not adversely affect another visitor’s
experience. Ideally, there are supports to encourage visitors to share
their thoughts with each other and come to a common understanding of
their shared exhibit experience.
4.2 Evaluation Process
Formative evaluation is an integral part of the iterative exhibit devel-
opment process at the Exploratorium (Figure 2 e). Depending on the
complexity of the exhibit, development may entail several rounds of
prototyping and evaluation, with each successive round testing proto-
types with modifications informed by visitor feedback and behavior
data collected through evaluation. For Sea of Genes we conducted three
successive rounds of prototyping and evaluation.
5V
ISUALIZATION DESIGN
Three iterations were designed and tested, each adding on one story
from
S1–3
. During each iteration every design choice was guided by
our considerations,
C1–4
. The following discussion is organized ac-
cording to key design decisions made during our iterative development
and evaluation process.
5.1 Constructing the Stories
The first step we took, guided by Lee et al.’s [42] approach, was to
spend time exploring the data and extracting data excerpts to use and
support
S1 and S2
, as described in Section 4. A study was conducted
earlier at the Exploratorium to examine prior knowledge and interests
in marine microbes and metagenomics. A large majority (96%) of the
136 visitors interviewed described microbes by a role they believed mi-
crobes played, while few used scientific taxonomic classifications [43].
Consequently, we decided to focus on functional roles. To identify
familiar functions from the dataset we referred to the Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS) [54] and consulted with our partners at Uni-
versity of Hawaii (UH). The science standards specify science concepts
taught at each grade level and are used to guide the design of educa-
tional experiences. The Exploratorium often designs for middle school
level; however, we found that most of the functions were not covered
until high school. With this in mind we consulted with our partners,
who suggested selecting microbes from their dataset based on their
roles in a microbial ecosystem and could demonstrate
S1–2
. Selecting
microbes based on roles rather than taxonomic classification would
assist visitor familiarity
C2
. Four microbes were chosen for the first
prototype (Figure 2). We selected phototrophs, Prochlorococcus, which
draw energy from the sun, heterotrophs, SAR116, which consume other
forms of energy like sugar, photo-heterotrophs, Crocosphaera, which
draw energy from the sun and eat other forms of energy, and viruses.
Viruses are not in NGSS; so, we relied on another prior study [70] that
found 71% of teens knew viruses caused infections, and 79% recog-
nized images of the type of virus used in the Hawaii dataset. Next, we
chose microbial functions to animate for each microbe. We selected
functions from the data that had a strong daily pattern and were familiar
to museum visitors [43], selecting functions behind photosynthesis and
cell division, which are concepts that are encountered in U.S. middle
schools according to NGSS.
Prior studies [43, 70] suggest visitors believed microbes had a larger
role in our ecosystems. However, we needed to determine which story
to center the design around. Our previous study [43] found 95% of visi-
tors knew microbes lived in the ocean, and although 28% were initially
surprised that microbes have genetic material, a majority (71%) when
told this fact found it reasonable and believable.
S2 and S3
required
explaining to the public the link between microbes and genetics. Prior
work [41] found the general public had a limited understanding of
basic genetic terms and concepts, suggesting that visitors would have
difficulty with
S2
and hence
S3
. For this reason the team decided that
the main feature of the exhibit should be
S1
, an animation of microbial
behavior with familiar descriptions.
5.2 Prototype 1
Our scientific partners at UH helped identify which stories could be
told from their data. One of the stories within the dataset was that
microbes have function that are on a daily cycle. Based on a previous
study [43], we focused on this daily cycle of microbial functions, which
we predicted may give visitors a more familiar entry point in to the
metagenomics data.
We collaborated with our scientific partners at the UH to create a
visualization with somewhat familiar representations to visitors
(C2)
and to simplify the complexity of the data
(C3)
. From our discussions
we created a model of microbial interactions that could best tell
S1
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF BATH. Downloaded on May 13,2021 at 22:16:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
DASU ET AL.: SEA OF GENES: A REFLECTION ON VISUALISING METAGENOMIC DATA FOR MUSEUMS 939
Fig. 3. (a) Sea of Genes Prototype 1 visualized four main microbial characters depicted as 4 unique icons.This visualization was tested on a large
tabletop display. (b) Stills of the central animation at different times of day. (c) Cards providing information for each microbe.
and offer some familiarity for visitors. The model simulates a 24 hour
period showing the functions each microbe performed during this time.
The objective of Prototype 1 was to see if visitors could follow
S1
. If
they were able to do so then we would try to layer in
S2
and finally
S3
.
We chose to have a central animation based on prior work [13] indi-
cating that animations could be effective for conveying these concepts
to novices,
C2
. However, animations, when designed for teaching those
with varying domain knowledge, require varying the presentation forms
to be effective in achieving a desired learning task [13, 37]. We decided
to layer the three related stories in an exhibit, we sought to present
each story within a form, starting with
S1
as an animation. We chose
S1
to be the focus of the animation since of the three stories it could
have the most familiarity with visitors [43] and, as the first story, it is
the foundation upon which the other stories are built. This animation
would serve as our entry point [33], and be the centerpiece to attract
visitors to the exhibit. This would also provide us with the opportunity
to determine if a “well-designed” expository animation actually con-
tains all the elements needed to draw the learners’ attention to the right
place at the right time [7] allowing visitors to quickly decode (
C3
) and
understand
S1
. With Prototype 1 our intent was to have a minimalist an-
imation. Our animation (Figure 3a) was driven by our curated model of
microbial interaction and portrayed microbes as icons interacting with
one another. This animation had three main elements: (1) Four main
microbial characters (Figure 3c), (2) A background which transitioned
from light to dark blue (Figure 3b) and back over a set period of 45
seconds (
C3
) to illustrate a 24 hour period, and (3) Control panels that
described each of the four microbes (Figure 3a). The control panels
were static and only provided textual information about each microbe.
We included a simple visitor interaction of tapping on the control panel
to inject viruses into the pool. Our goal was to communicate
S1
using
an animation that showed the functions of microbes during a 24 hour
period informed by metagenomic data.
The evaluation for Prototype 1 sought to determine if visitors could
interpret this first story from the animation. The exhibit was placed
near other exhibits that focused on microorganisms. One was an exhibit
on the microbes that live in the termite gut, with a live microscope
view of these microbes. The other was a Winogradsky panel that shows
microbial diversity and discusses energy production. While there was
not a designed exhibition, this context seemed to best support the
content of Sea of Genes.
To recruit participants for the evaluation, an evaluator stood near
the exhibit and approached every third person as they walked passed
a predetermined imaginary line near the exhibit. If the systematically
selected visitor was with a group, the whole group was invited to
participate as well. Consenting visitors were asked to use the exhibit.
Because it was an early prototype and not all of the labels or the touch
interactivity was implemented, the evaluator verbally described these
aspects to the participants:
Evaluator:
This exhibit shows how microscopic life behave in the
ocean. The water changes color from dark, for night, to light blue,
for day. You can release different organisms into the water to see
what they do. The touch is not working yet, so just let me know
which organism you want, and I’ll release them for you.
When participants indicated that they were done, the evaluator asked
the visitor who interacted the most within their group a set of questions
designed to gauge usability and comprehension. In this evaluation, we
talked with a total of 38 visitors
1
over the course of four days. When
we asked visitors what they found interesting, over 55% of them talked
about the interactions between microbes in general, with a minority
(6 out of 38 visitors) mentioning a specific interaction shown in the
animation, for example:
Visitor03:
[It was interesting] infection of Cyanophage to Prochloro-
coccus, and SAR116 eating. How it [infected Prochlorococcus]
burst and a bunch came out.
Visitor37:
One thing was SAR116 and Prochlorococcus working to-
gether [was interesting]. [I] noticed the SAR116 were going
by Prochlorococcus and right after the Prochlorococcus were
making sugar.
However, a majority (58%) of the visitors found parts of the anima-
tion confusing. There were multiple reasons visitors had difficulty
interpreting this animation. First, a few visitors complained that in the
animation, the microbes’ small size and thus poor resolution made it
difficult to distinguish one type from another, e.g.:
Visitor01:
Some stuff was really small, so you couldn’t see what was
happening
Visitor17:
These [Prochlorococcus] in particular appear to move
randomly. A better graphic representation would be helpful.
Second, visitors could not decipher parts of the animation to make
sense of microbial behavior, e.g.,:
Visitor24: No idea what those guys [Crocosphaera] do.
Visitor29: Didn’t understand what SAR116 were doing.
This was particularly the case when microbes appeared and disappeared
as they were born and died, e.g.:
Visitor01:
Some would disappear, especially this one [SAR116]. It
was hard to see why they disappeared.
A smaller number (29%) of visitors noticed differences between day
and night, even though the evaluator described the transition at the
beginning of their exhibit use.
Visitor38:
The light and dark. Seeing difference between what’s there
and thrives in the light versus dark.
1
The demographic breakdown of the evaluation participants was: 18 adults,
12 teenagers, and 8 children, with 20 females and 18 males.
expression data to identify temporal patterns. How we present these
stories is constrained by the considerations of an informal learning
environment in an interactive science museum.
4.1 Museum Considerations
Museums are informal learning environments referred to as “designed
environments” in which exhibits are developed to help structure visitor
experiences, in line with institutional goals and values [53]. In addi-
tion to facilitating visitor engagement and comprehension of complex
datasets, the team needed to ensure the exhibit design considered the
informal learning context. The following considerations were identified
and informed by our collaborators at the Exploratorium, which we used
to constrain and guide our design process.
C1. Free-choice learning environment. As with other types of infor-
mal learning environments, the experiences in museums, as compared
to the formal setting of the classroom, are motivated and guided by
personal interests rather than compulsory requirements [2, 5]. This is
often referred to as a free-choice learning environment. In such an
environment visitors may not encounter or even choose to attend to
our exhibit. The exhibit design must consider methods to attract and
retain visitor attention. As free-choice learning environments [53],
museums employ a variety of techniques to attract and sustain visitors
interests and engagement at exhibits. For example, DeepTree [15], an
interactive visualization of the tree of life had strategically placed fea-
tures which invited attention and used the interactive table to encourage
collaboration. Likewise, the interactive plankton visualization in the
Living Liquid project [45], used an animated visualization paired with
a tangible interface to captivate visitors interest and serve as gateway
for exploration of plankton patterns.
C2. Public comprehension.
The audience we design for is the visiting
public, who are typically not domain experts. Since our museum attracts
a diverse audience we do not know where, on the spectrum of novice
to expert, our visitor’s prior knowledge is. Furthermore, the open space
layout of the exhibits means there are no guarantees a visitor will come
to the Sea of Genes exhibit with the prerequisite knowledge learned
from a prior exhibit [6]. Therefore, we cannot assume familiarity with
the underlying dataset or domain itself. Similarly, we cannot assume
representations which experts use for interpreting the data will translate
to the public [15]. However, we should be mindful to not trivialize
the experience to exclude experts or people who want to explore the
content matter deeply.
C3. Readily decipherable.
When designing an exhibit in a science
museum there is a need for fast decoding and ready interpretation of the
visualization [46]. In the Exploratoriums Traits of Life exhibit collection
holding times at a signle exhibit ranged from 12 to 149 seconds [29].
In other words, visitors have a short dwell time at exhibits and within
this time they need to decode what is visually presented. Our design
should thus accelerate this decode process.
C4. Support Multi-user Interaction.
Exhibit design must allow for
multiple visitors to view or interact. This comes in both the need to
support social groups who frequent the museum and facilitate collab-
orative learning [21]. There are also logistical reasons for multi-user
exhibits, such as preventing queues and facilitating visitor movement
in the overall exhibit space, and providing more visitors access to an
exhibit. Designing for multiple users has several implications. Because
we cannot assume a visitor will come to the exhibit in its initial state, the
design should ensure a visitor’s can interpret and interact with the ex-
hibit regardless of the state of the visualization. Furthermore, a visitor’s
interaction with the exhibit must not adversely affect another visitor’s
experience. Ideally, there are supports to encourage visitors to share
their thoughts with each other and come to a common understanding of
their shared exhibit experience.
4.2 Evaluation Process
Formative evaluation is an integral part of the iterative exhibit devel-
opment process at the Exploratorium (Figure 2 e). Depending on the
complexity of the exhibit, development may entail several rounds of
prototyping and evaluation, with each successive round testing proto-
types with modifications informed by visitor feedback and behavior
data collected through evaluation. For Sea of Genes we conducted three
successive rounds of prototyping and evaluation.
5V
ISUALIZATION DESIGN
Three iterations were designed and tested, each adding on one story
from
S1–3
. During each iteration every design choice was guided by
our considerations,
C1–4
. The following discussion is organized ac-
cording to key design decisions made during our iterative development
and evaluation process.
5.1 Constructing the Stories
The first step we took, guided by Lee et al.’s [42] approach, was to
spend time exploring the data and extracting data excerpts to use and
support
S1 and S2
, as described in Section 4. A study was conducted
earlier at the Exploratorium to examine prior knowledge and interests
in marine microbes and metagenomics. A large majority (96%) of the
136 visitors interviewed described microbes by a role they believed mi-
crobes played, while few used scientific taxonomic classifications [43].
Consequently, we decided to focus on functional roles. To identify
familiar functions from the dataset we referred to the Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS) [54] and consulted with our partners at Uni-
versity of Hawaii (UH). The science standards specify science concepts
taught at each grade level and are used to guide the design of educa-
tional experiences. The Exploratorium often designs for middle school
level; however, we found that most of the functions were not covered
until high school. With this in mind we consulted with our partners,
who suggested selecting microbes from their dataset based on their
roles in a microbial ecosystem and could demonstrate
S1–2
. Selecting
microbes based on roles rather than taxonomic classification would
assist visitor familiarity
C2
. Four microbes were chosen for the first
prototype (Figure 2). We selected phototrophs, Prochlorococcus, which
draw energy from the sun, heterotrophs, SAR116, which consume other
forms of energy like sugar, photo-heterotrophs, Crocosphaera, which
draw energy from the sun and eat other forms of energy, and viruses.
Viruses are not in NGSS; so, we relied on another prior study [70] that
found 71% of teens knew viruses caused infections, and 79% recog-
nized images of the type of virus used in the Hawaii dataset. Next, we
chose microbial functions to animate for each microbe. We selected
functions from the data that had a strong daily pattern and were familiar
to museum visitors [43], selecting functions behind photosynthesis and
cell division, which are concepts that are encountered in U.S. middle
schools according to NGSS.
Prior studies [43, 70] suggest visitors believed microbes had a larger
role in our ecosystems. However, we needed to determine which story
to center the design around. Our previous study [43] found 95% of visi-
tors knew microbes lived in the ocean, and although 28% were initially
surprised that microbes have genetic material, a majority (71%) when
told this fact found it reasonable and believable.
S2 and S3
required
explaining to the public the link between microbes and genetics. Prior
work [41] found the general public had a limited understanding of
basic genetic terms and concepts, suggesting that visitors would have
difficulty with
S2
and hence
S3
. For this reason the team decided that
the main feature of the exhibit should be
S1
, an animation of microbial
behavior with familiar descriptions.
5.2 Prototype 1
Our scientific partners at UH helped identify which stories could be
told from their data. One of the stories within the dataset was that
microbes have function that are on a daily cycle. Based on a previous
study [43], we focused on this daily cycle of microbial functions, which
we predicted may give visitors a more familiar entry point in to the
metagenomics data.
We collaborated with our scientific partners at the UH to create a
visualization with somewhat familiar representations to visitors
(C2)
and to simplify the complexity of the data
(C3)
. From our discussions
we created a model of microbial interactions that could best tell
S1
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF BATH. Downloaded on May 13,2021 at 22:16:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
940 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS, VOL. 27, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2021
Fig. 5. (a) Final design of the Sea of Genes exhibit. (b) Legend containing information about Sun Harvesters and in the center is the activity gene
showing the genes responsible for making sugar are being expressed.(c) Annotation showing what the Sun Harvester is doing.
By providing human-like characteristics to the messages we theorized
that visitors would engage more and process the narrative quicker
(C3)
.
These annotations would be triggered when an observable function
occurred. Only one would be triggered at a time to not overwhelm the
visitors (C3 and C4) but to guide them through the story.
Lastly, we updated the control panels (Figure 4a) by simplifying the
text and providing a timeline chart to highlight the temporal aspect of
microbial behavior. This version included all microbes in the simulation
and not just viruses. The timeline was included to enable visitors
to see the entire daily cycle for each type of microbe and provide
context for what was occurring in the animation. An indicator, synced
to the internal animation clock, would slide across the timeline to
both reinforce the time and highlight what function each microbe was
performing
(C2 and C3)
. Although animation implicitly illustrates
time [1], we needed to convey to the visitors the repetition of similar
behaviors during the 24 hour period.
The evaluation was conducted with 21 museum visitors recruited
near the exhibit prototype
2
, following an evaluation protocol similar
to that of Prototype 1. However, in this evaluation, the evaluator did
not describe anything about the exhibit since all the exhibit labels and
touch interactivity were implemented. Instead, visitors were invited to
use the prototype however they saw fit.
This evaluation found that visitors noticed the microbial interactions;
when asked what they thought the exhibit was trying to show, 71%
mentioned microbial interactions,
S1
, with 86% of visitors mentioning
at least one microbial interaction when asked what they saw in the
exhibit. These findings suggest that a majority of the visitors understood
aspects of the first layer of the story: Microbes interact with each
other,
S1
. But, they continued to struggle with noticing the daily
cycle: Close to half of the visitor said that it was difficult to distinguish
between day and night in the animation, and only one-third of the
visitors mentioned a specific temporal pattern in microbial activities.
This was despite the addition of the timeline chart and emphasizing
temporal patterns in both the control and the label.
The third layer of the story,
S3
, was only partially conveyed. Al-
though 62% reported thinking that the animations was based on real
data, a third of that group thought what they saw in the animated ocean
was a representation of what researchers see. For example:
Visitor08:
They went on a boat and collected it in a bucket and put it
in a petri dish and put it under a microscope and looked at it.
These results suggest that the first story, depicted through the central
animation, was communicated clearer due to the additions of anthro-
pomorphized annotations and asset improvements. We suspect that
2
There were 15 adults, 5 teenagers, and 2 child participants. Nine were male,
and 12 were female.
annotations helped visitors decode more readily, made the unfamil-
iar more familiar, and drew their attention to the salient parts of the
visualization. Visitors no longer needed to decipher what the role of
“procholoroccus” was and instead could observe the “Sun harvester”
explain simply what it was performing.
For our next version we sought to further improve how we convey
S2
and S3
. Specifically, we sought to help visitors track temporal changes
such as noticing microbes perform different abilities over a period,
which many did not readily notice. And, we needed to better highlight
the underlying meta-genomics and meta-transcriptomics data, S2.
5.4 Prototype 3
For the final iteration of Sea of Genes, we focused efforts on sharpening
the communication of
S2
and
S3
by emphasizing connections to the
underlying metagenomic data. Our evaluation of Prototype 2 showed
that although the prototype had fewer distractions relative to Prototype
1,
S2
and
S3
were largely unnoticed. The changes in Prototype 2 made
the exhibit more effective in communicating S1.
We changed the orientation of the exhibit and reduced the number
of panels around the table to focus attention on the animation. We
hypothesized that having a single orientation for the exhibit would
make it easier for visitors to decode the visualization
(C3)
. Fixing
the orientation appears to contradict our
C4
, supporting multi-user
interaction. However, an evaluation of a similar tabletop visualization,
Plankton Populations [45], found visitors tended to use one side even
though it supported multi-orientation use. In line with
C2
, we moved
the label to the left side of the exhibit and removed all complex graphic
elements [25,48,50]. The new label (Figure 5a) told
S3
, expressing how
the data was collected and how the representations in the visualization
were linked in four steps: (1) Collect Water; (2) Extract DNA; (3)
Analyze Gene Activity; (4) Tell the story.
To emphasize that the animation is based on genetic data,
S2
, we
made the following additions: A large title that included the word genes
(A Sea of Genes) (Figure 5a), the legends and microbe annotations
were adapted to refer to genes (Figure 5b), and the iconic DNA helix
was added to the middle of the gene activity wheel and the annotation
boxes (Figure 5c). We modified the design of the timeline chart to
emphasize
S2
and passively support
S1
. The new representation would
display the underlying genomic data as a radial histogram (Figure 5b).
We considered using a circos visualization, as they have been used
by the New York Times to supplement stories on metagenomics and
comparative genomics [39], however, it would only increase decode
time (violating
C3
) and we could not assume our visitors would be
familiar with that representation
(C2)
. Rather, we designed a visual-
ization where each gene related to a particular behavior was grouped
around the circumference of the circle (all of the photosynthesis-related
Fig. 4. (a) Sea of genes Prototype 2’s control panel and interpretive label. Panels are placed on two sides of the table to allow for more visitors to
interact. Microbe annotations orient to the corresponding direction based on their position. (b) Timeline chart depicts an overview of what each
microbe is currently doing and will do in the animation. (c) Annotation describes the microbe’s current behavior. (d) Control panel describing the
microbe and a timeline chart showing its current active behavior.
Our evaluation of this prototype showed visitors were interested in
the interactions between microbes. A few noticed behaviors such as
infection and eating. The majority, however, could only glean that there
is a microbial community but may not have discerned the specifics of the
behaviors or relationships. This may have been due to the presence of
too many unique animated elements; Pylyshyn and Storm [61] showed
people can only track up to 5 independent moving targets accurately.
Rather than notice the individual unique animations between microbes,
the excessive amount of moving elements may have led to it being
processed as one entity. Thus, we hypothesize this prototype fell to the
Gestalt principle of Common Fate [57], which states humans perceive
visual stimuli that move in the same speed or direction as parts of a
single stimulus. Furthermore, processing both this visual information
and decoding what it means may have distracted visitors from paying
attention to the background color change. We needed to improve how
we portrayed our microbes to make clear the interactions of interest and
focus visitor attention. Yet, this evaluation indicated that the animation
was able to convey that microbes interact with one another, enough that
55% of visitors talked about it, the first aspect of
S1
; however, it drew
too much attention, resulting in few visitors seeing or discussing the
daily aspect. Based on the evaluation data findings, it was clear that we
had to improve our animation to better support visitors’ interpretation
of the microbial functions and their daily rhythm.
5.3 Prototype 2
For the next version we wanted to (1) improve our animation presenting
S1
by making it easier for visitors to interpret and (2) layer on
S2
by
visually communicating that gene expression going on and off is what
drives the microbial functions seen in
S1
. Furthermore, for this version
we elected a more designer-driven approach for presenting the narrative.
That is rather than let the visitors independently navigate the visualiza-
tion and discover stories on their own, we sought to have more control
on actively guiding visitors to the stories. Because these changes would
introduce more information to decode, we had to carefully revise the
animation to convey the additional information without overwhelm-
ing the visitors [7, 24]. To accomplish these tasks we focused on the
following elements of the exhibit.
•
Appearance of microbes and their behavior
(C1 and C3)
. Visual
designers worked closely with the UH scientists and exhibit spe-
cialists to define how microbes and their behavior would appear
in the exhibit (Figure 6).
•
Control panel for interaction and interpretation
(C2 and C4)
.
Central to interactivity was a control panel with a “well” of mi-
crobes that visitors could drag into the exhibit. The control panel
also described the creatures and a timeline chart that tracked the
timing of activities seen throughout the day (Figure 4a).
•
Annotations: New text was added to focus visitors to relevant
information and reduce time finding what to observe
(C3)
. These
annotations also conveyed that microbial behavior and relation-
ships follow a daily pattern (Figure 4b).
To improve interpretation of each story, we sought to reduce noise and
confusion by both lowering the number of microbes and improving the
quality of assets and animations [35, 73]. Some visitors who saw Pro-
totype 1 reported having trouble identifying the microbes. Therefore,
the microbe community was reduced from 4 to 3 and the assets of each
microbe were changed to be more realistic compared to the previous
version,
(C3)
. The simulated ocean animation now only contained
three microbial types: SAR116, Cyanophage, and Prochlorococcus as
shown in Figure 6. We created non-scientific names for these microbial
characters to reinforce their functional role in the ocean ecosystem and
provide some familiarity to our visitors [25, 48,50]. “Sun Harvesters”
was the name given to Prochlorococcus, a microbe that makes energy
from the sun. “Sugar Eaters” was the name given to SAR116, a microbe
that lives on sugars produced by other microbes. “The virus” was the
name given to cyanophage, a virus that infects Prochlorococcus. To
reduce the amount of information visitors needed to process, we also
showed a fewer number of microbes in the overall animation.
The previous prototype relied heavily on visitor participation and
engagement; specifically, they had to invest time in interpreting and
navigating the animation to discover
S1
. This dependency we formed
on visitor participation conflicts with
C1
so we chose to pivot in a
different direction. In this prototype, we wanted to assert our narrative
and lessen the time it takes to do so
(C3)
. We added annotations
to direct visitors to the stories
(C3)
. Annotations have been used
effectively in several studies of information visualizations [26,27,35,36]
to add information, convey meaning, show data provenance, represent
uncertainty, and highlight points of interest for users. Annotations also
strengthen the narrative by drawing attention to aspects of the story
we want to tell
(C3)
. Our annotations would pop-up and highlight
a microbial action (Figure 4b) delivering a characterized message of
what microbial function was occurring as well as reinforcing when it
occurred. This reinforcement aligns with the theories [13, 37] about the
learning benefits of multiple forms of representation. The characterized
message was also designed to both anthropomorphize the microbe and
highlight key interactions. In marketing, anthropomorphism has been
shown to have positive and significant influence on personal value [62].
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF BATH. Downloaded on May 13,2021 at 22:16:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
DASU ET AL.: SEA OF GENES: A REFLECTION ON VISUALISING METAGENOMIC DATA FOR MUSEUMS 941
Fig. 5. (a) Final design of the Sea of Genes exhibit. (b) Legend containing information about Sun Harvesters and in the center is the activity gene
showing the genes responsible for making sugar are being expressed.(c) Annotation showing what the Sun Harvester is doing.
By providing human-like characteristics to the messages we theorized
that visitors would engage more and process the narrative quicker
(C3)
.
These annotations would be triggered when an observable function
occurred. Only one would be triggered at a time to not overwhelm the
visitors (C3 and C4) but to guide them through the story.
Lastly, we updated the control panels (Figure 4a) by simplifying the
text and providing a timeline chart to highlight the temporal aspect of
microbial behavior. This version included all microbes in the simulation
and not just viruses. The timeline was included to enable visitors
to see the entire daily cycle for each type of microbe and provide
context for what was occurring in the animation. An indicator, synced
to the internal animation clock, would slide across the timeline to
both reinforce the time and highlight what function each microbe was
performing
(C2 and C3)
. Although animation implicitly illustrates
time [1], we needed to convey to the visitors the repetition of similar
behaviors during the 24 hour period.
The evaluation was conducted with 21 museum visitors recruited
near the exhibit prototype
2
, following an evaluation protocol similar
to that of Prototype 1. However, in this evaluation, the evaluator did
not describe anything about the exhibit since all the exhibit labels and
touch interactivity were implemented. Instead, visitors were invited to
use the prototype however they saw fit.
This evaluation found that visitors noticed the microbial interactions;
when asked what they thought the exhibit was trying to show, 71%
mentioned microbial interactions,
S1
, with 86% of visitors mentioning
at least one microbial interaction when asked what they saw in the
exhibit. These findings suggest that a majority of the visitors understood
aspects of the first layer of the story: Microbes interact with each
other,
S1
. But, they continued to struggle with noticing the daily
cycle: Close to half of the visitor said that it was difficult to distinguish
between day and night in the animation, and only one-third of the
visitors mentioned a specific temporal pattern in microbial activities.
This was despite the addition of the timeline chart and emphasizing
temporal patterns in both the control and the label.
The third layer of the story,
S3
, was only partially conveyed. Al-
though 62% reported thinking that the animations was based on real
data, a third of that group thought what they saw in the animated ocean
was a representation of what researchers see. For example:
Visitor08:
They went on a boat and collected it in a bucket and put it
in a petri dish and put it under a microscope and looked at it.
These results suggest that the first story, depicted through the central
animation, was communicated clearer due to the additions of anthro-
pomorphized annotations and asset improvements. We suspect that
2
There were 15 adults, 5 teenagers, and 2 child participants. Nine were male,
and 12 were female.
annotations helped visitors decode more readily, made the unfamil-
iar more familiar, and drew their attention to the salient parts of the
visualization. Visitors no longer needed to decipher what the role of
“procholoroccus” was and instead could observe the “Sun harvester”
explain simply what it was performing.
For our next version we sought to further improve how we convey
S2
and S3
. Specifically, we sought to help visitors track temporal changes
such as noticing microbes perform different abilities over a period,
which many did not readily notice. And, we needed to better highlight
the underlying meta-genomics and meta-transcriptomics data, S2.
5.4 Prototype 3
For the final iteration of Sea of Genes, we focused efforts on sharpening
the communication of
S2
and
S3
by emphasizing connections to the
underlying metagenomic data. Our evaluation of Prototype 2 showed
that although the prototype had fewer distractions relative to Prototype
1,
S2
and
S3
were largely unnoticed. The changes in Prototype 2 made
the exhibit more effective in communicating S1.
We changed the orientation of the exhibit and reduced the number
of panels around the table to focus attention on the animation. We
hypothesized that having a single orientation for the exhibit would
make it easier for visitors to decode the visualization
(C3)
. Fixing
the orientation appears to contradict our
C4
, supporting multi-user
interaction. However, an evaluation of a similar tabletop visualization,
Plankton Populations [45], found visitors tended to use one side even
though it supported multi-orientation use. In line with
C2
, we moved
the label to the left side of the exhibit and removed all complex graphic
elements [25,48,50]. The new label (Figure 5a) told
S3
, expressing how
the data was collected and how the representations in the visualization
were linked in four steps: (1) Collect Water; (2) Extract DNA; (3)
Analyze Gene Activity; (4) Tell the story.
To emphasize that the animation is based on genetic data,
S2
, we
made the following additions: A large title that included the word genes
(A Sea of Genes) (Figure 5a), the legends and microbe annotations
were adapted to refer to genes (Figure 5b), and the iconic DNA helix
was added to the middle of the gene activity wheel and the annotation
boxes (Figure 5c). We modified the design of the timeline chart to
emphasize
S2
and passively support
S1
. The new representation would
display the underlying genomic data as a radial histogram (Figure 5b).
We considered using a circos visualization, as they have been used
by the New York Times to supplement stories on metagenomics and
comparative genomics [39], however, it would only increase decode
time (violating
C3
) and we could not assume our visitors would be
familiar with that representation
(C2)
. Rather, we designed a visual-
ization where each gene related to a particular behavior was grouped
around the circumference of the circle (all of the photosynthesis-related
Fig. 4. (a) Sea of genes Prototype 2’s control panel and interpretive label. Panels are placed on two sides of the table to allow for more visitors to
interact. Microbe annotations orient to the corresponding direction based on their position. (b) Timeline chart depicts an overview of what each
microbe is currently doing and will do in the animation. (c) Annotation describes the microbe’s current behavior. (d) Control panel describing the
microbe and a timeline chart showing its current active behavior.
Our evaluation of this prototype showed visitors were interested in
the interactions between microbes. A few noticed behaviors such as
infection and eating. The majority, however, could only glean that there
is a microbial community but may not have discerned the specifics of the
behaviors or relationships. This may have been due to the presence of
too many unique animated elements; Pylyshyn and Storm [61] showed
people can only track up to 5 independent moving targets accurately.
Rather than notice the individual unique animations between microbes,
the excessive amount of moving elements may have led to it being
processed as one entity. Thus, we hypothesize this prototype fell to the
Gestalt principle of Common Fate [57], which states humans perceive
visual stimuli that move in the same speed or direction as parts of a
single stimulus. Furthermore, processing both this visual information
and decoding what it means may have distracted visitors from paying
attention to the background color change. We needed to improve how
we portrayed our microbes to make clear the interactions of interest and
focus visitor attention. Yet, this evaluation indicated that the animation
was able to convey that microbes interact with one another, enough that
55% of visitors talked about it, the first aspect of
S1
; however, it drew
too much attention, resulting in few visitors seeing or discussing the
daily aspect. Based on the evaluation data findings, it was clear that we
had to improve our animation to better support visitors’ interpretation
of the microbial functions and their daily rhythm.
5.3 Prototype 2
For the next version we wanted to (1) improve our animation presenting
S1
by making it easier for visitors to interpret and (2) layer on
S2
by
visually communicating that gene expression going on and off is what
drives the microbial functions seen in
S1
. Furthermore, for this version
we elected a more designer-driven approach for presenting the narrative.
That is rather than let the visitors independently navigate the visualiza-
tion and discover stories on their own, we sought to have more control
on actively guiding visitors to the stories. Because these changes would
introduce more information to decode, we had to carefully revise the
animation to convey the additional information without overwhelm-
ing the visitors [7, 24]. To accomplish these tasks we focused on the
following elements of the exhibit.
•
Appearance of microbes and their behavior
(C1 and C3)
. Visual
designers worked closely with the UH scientists and exhibit spe-
cialists to define how microbes and their behavior would appear
in the exhibit (Figure 6).
•
Control panel for interaction and interpretation
(C2 and C4)
.
Central to interactivity was a control panel with a “well” of mi-
crobes that visitors could drag into the exhibit. The control panel
also described the creatures and a timeline chart that tracked the
timing of activities seen throughout the day (Figure 4a).
•
Annotations: New text was added to focus visitors to relevant
information and reduce time finding what to observe
(C3)
. These
annotations also conveyed that microbial behavior and relation-
ships follow a daily pattern (Figure 4b).
To improve interpretation of each story, we sought to reduce noise and
confusion by both lowering the number of microbes and improving the
quality of assets and animations [35, 73]. Some visitors who saw Pro-
totype 1 reported having trouble identifying the microbes. Therefore,
the microbe community was reduced from 4 to 3 and the assets of each
microbe were changed to be more realistic compared to the previous
version,
(C3)
. The simulated ocean animation now only contained
three microbial types: SAR116, Cyanophage, and Prochlorococcus as
shown in Figure 6. We created non-scientific names for these microbial
characters to reinforce their functional role in the ocean ecosystem and
provide some familiarity to our visitors [25, 48, 50]. “Sun Harvesters”
was the name given to Prochlorococcus, a microbe that makes energy
from the sun. “Sugar Eaters” was the name given to SAR116, a microbe
that lives on sugars produced by other microbes. “The virus” was the
name given to cyanophage, a virus that infects Prochlorococcus. To
reduce the amount of information visitors needed to process, we also
showed a fewer number of microbes in the overall animation.
The previous prototype relied heavily on visitor participation and
engagement; specifically, they had to invest time in interpreting and
navigating the animation to discover
S1
. This dependency we formed
on visitor participation conflicts with
C1
so we chose to pivot in a
different direction. In this prototype, we wanted to assert our narrative
and lessen the time it takes to do so
(C3)
. We added annotations
to direct visitors to the stories
(C3)
. Annotations have been used
effectively in several studies of information visualizations [26,27,35,36]
to add information, convey meaning, show data provenance, represent
uncertainty, and highlight points of interest for users. Annotations also
strengthen the narrative by drawing attention to aspects of the story
we want to tell
(C3)
. Our annotations would pop-up and highlight
a microbial action (Figure 4b) delivering a characterized message of
what microbial function was occurring as well as reinforcing when it
occurred. This reinforcement aligns with the theories [13, 37] about the
learning benefits of multiple forms of representation. The characterized
message was also designed to both anthropomorphize the microbe and
highlight key interactions. In marketing, anthropomorphism has been
shown to have positive and significant influence on personal value [62].
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF BATH. Downloaded on May 13,2021 at 22:16:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
942 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS, VOL. 27, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2021
ever, with
C1
and evidenced by Boy et al. [9], it is difficult to assume
they will get past the “designer”-driven direct messaging and reach
the exploration part. A study [44] conducted at the Exploratorium
examined if a narrative introduction could better contextualize the ex-
hibit and found it had no real advantage over not-including it. This
introduction was a slideshow presenting where the dataset came from
and its scientific significance, similar to
S3
. Furthermore, under
C4
if the exhibit is at the exploration state, then new visitors are missing
key information that allows them to truly participate, excluding them
of this experience.
Next, the Interactive Presentation structure allows for an individ-
ual to progress through the story when they are ready to do so, and
allows them to repeat steps. This structure, however, does not allow
for multiple people to follow along
(C4)
, in the sense of allowing
any visitor to step forward or backwards, which could disrupt other’s
experience. This constraint could be addressed by transforming the
presentation into a looped animation. The loop could also allow visitors
to follow along back to points where they missed, ideally allowing for
understanding at their pace. However, even with using an animated
loop, as the animation advances new information is continuously pre-
sented. While visitors have started understanding a scene the animation
has progressed, introducing new material to decode, leading to either
confusion or frustration with the exhibit, as seen with Prototype 3.
The Drill-Down approach appears to have the most promise but there
is still a constraint on what you can train a visitor to do and expect
C2
.
The structure allows for telling multiple related stories since it is built
on drilling into sub-stories and adding new details. However, there are
several challenges with this structure when attempting to construct an
exhibit experience with intuitive interactions that can be received by
the majority of visitors. There is the delicate balance of presenting
either new visualizations or materials in the sub-views without over-
whelming a visitor with content. Then there is the additional challenge
of ensuring that the exhibit is accessible to multiple visitors (i.e., if
one visitor is drilling-down, it will not interfere with another visitor’s
experience). Furthermore, depending on the relationships between
stories this structure may struggle since it requires a central story to
reach all other sub-stories. Treating stories as graphs, documenting
what kind of graphs each of these structures can present under
C1-4
is a
direction that could merit great value for presenting in such conditions.
How it handles such stories as Sea of Genes with strong parallel themes
between stories, S1 and S2, is an open question.
Stories as graphs:
Narratives are predominantly linear and are most
effective in conveying a single perspective. According to Spiro and
Jehng [71], “linearity of media is not a problem when the subject matter
being taught is well structured and fairly simple. However, as content
increases in complexity and ill-structuredness, increasingly greater
amounts of important information are lost with linear approaches.”
Can we create visual narratives that permit multiple perspectives and
allow different narrative flows? As Hullman and Diakopolus [35] point
out conveying a point of view requires careful over-emphasis. It is
well known that multiple perspectives are needed to learn complex
topics [18]. We do not have good frameworks for classifying story com-
plexity in a manner that can inform visualizations. A simple narrative
has one causal pathway and is unidirectional. How do we characterize
structures that are more complex? A taxonomy may allow us to develop
visualization techniques. Effective storytelling is subject of interest
to a diverse group of researchers in social sciences, computer science,
and biological sciences. A taxonomy may allow us to map findings
from these disparate domains and develop theories and guidelines. One
approach could be to use graph theory. Here milestones, events, or
information would be nodes and connections or flows represent edges.
A simple story is a unidirectional planar graph with no branches. Let us
call this a basic graph. In our narrative, we had a more general network.
The activities of an individual microbe (e.g., sun-harvester preparing
sugar) is close to a basic graph. The activities of these microbes inter-
acting (e.g., “preparing sugar” & “eating sugar”) creates a more general
graph. Since these connections occurred in parallel and all share the
same time dynamics we have a directed graph that represents
S1
. The
role of genes,
S2
, however, changes the structure of the graph. We
could view the genomics as nested information. Embedded in each
node corresponding to an event (e.g., “preparing sugar”), there was
genomic data (e.g., time of expression & amount of transcript). In our
visualization, we present the embedded data in a narrative that was
occurring in parallel in a separate space. That is, we presented genomic
data in a dynamic histogram on the bottom of the screen separate from
the animation in the center while both update in parallel. Our lim-
ited success in effectively connecting these two stories for the visitors
highlights the need to consider other visualization techniques for these
graphs. In short, we contend that there is a need for a richer taxonomy.
7CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
Reflecting on this endeavor we find there is space for further research
at the intersection of storytelling, data visualization, and informal
learning. The current storytelling structures are effective in many
situations; however, delving deeper into the union of exhibit design and
narrative visualization could extend the current structures, introduce
”visitor”-driven methodologies, or offer adjustments and considerations
to ”author”-driven methodologies.
The process of communicating scientific findings as multiple stories
visually in an informal learning environment brought many challenges.
We need better understanding of how to construct readily decipherable
visual abstractions of a complex science, while maintaining scientific
authenticity and accessibility to the public. If the abstraction was too
simple they didn’t understand or notice the science, when the science
was emphasized they were confused. Communicating multiple related
stories is another challenge. We need to ensure the underlying con-
nections between each story is reflected visually. In our final iteration
each story was embedded in a unique encoding; the community of
microbes S1, a radial histogram S2, and a side panel S3. A visual link
between these three was not explicit enough to be received by visitors.
We had some implicit clues, such as when a visitor touches a microbe
a small radial histogram inside the microbe appears that correlates to
the larger one. At the time of development, designing a visual link was
not considered. Our entry point into the exhibit was the community of
microbes. Yet, from the entry point to the two ancillary visualizations
there isn’t an explicit visual cue for a visitor to follow. We lacked in
our design a visual encoding that functions as a through-line for our
stories. In other words, there should be a visual encoding to reflect a
common theme or consistent element within our stories. Perhaps such
an encoding would help visitors continue to the other stories beyond
the entry point. This requires the stories are not disjoint and have a
minimum of one factor in common.
We reviewed our process for designing Sea of Genes. From our
reflection we believe there is clear value in sharing experiences and
lessons learned. Overall this study supports retrospective analysis of
design work in new cross-disciplinary domains even if the desired
goals were not met. Theories are typically shown to work in their
documented space; however, there is value in reporting how these
theories behave when tested outside of these documented spaces. We
hope our extensive case study will stimulate additional research in
approaches for visualizing complex data from unfamiliar domains
for the public to explore in physical settings including museums and
visitors centers.
A
CKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Elisha Wood-Charlson and Ed DeLong for
sharing the SCOPE dataset and for their time and expertise. We would
also like to thank Eric Rodenbeck, Nicolette Hayes, and Andrew Wong
of Stamen Design for collaborating on the design and development of
the prototypes, and Meghan Kroning, Tamara Kubacki, Katherine Nam-
macher, and Janine Penticuff for evaluation assistance. This research
has been supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation
through grants DRL-1323214, DRL-1322828, and IIS-1528203 and by
the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Foundations.
Fig. 6. (a) The design process of transforming the microbes into the characters of our stories over all prototypes. Initially we used icons to represent
each, in the further iterations we used sprites. The final image depicts SAR116, Cyanophages, and Prochlorococcus in their final iterated state. (b)
The card design changes between Prototype 1 to Prototype 3. (c) Various design iterations of the side panel from Prototype 2 to Prototype 3.
genes under “Preparing to Make Sugar”). Each gene had an activity
range and was displayed as a dynamic histogram; length of the bar was
determined by the normalized amount of transcript in the sample. So,
through the course of 24 hours different areas of the circle would have
waves of gene activity, similar to an equalizer.
Part of the success of conveying
S1
in the previous prototype may
have been a result of the interactivity we provided visitors, i.e, the
ability to add microbes to the animation. We chose to shift the story the
interaction emphasized from
S1
to
S2
. Rather than adding a microbe,
tapping on the revamped card (Figure 5b) would highlight all microbes
of that type and show their gene activity, Figure 5c.
Prototype 3 was evaluated as part of a larger summative evaluation
conducted by an external museum evaluation group, Inverness Research.
This evaluation sought to find the key understandings that visitors came
away with from their interaction with the exhibit. While conducting the
study, Inverness found that visitors were not spending sufficient time at
the exhibit and therefore would not be able answer the questions in their
exit interview. So, they focused their efforts on mediated interviews,
in which visiting groups were recruited to interact with the exhibit
and answer questions immediately afterwards. A total of 13 mediated
interviews were conducted. The interview results reported 2 of the
13 groups understood that scientists collected data while on boats,
and that something about what they collected is represented on the
screen of the table. However, there was no clear evidence that visitors
understood that the data represented was gene expression. Furthermore,
the mediated interviews indicated that visitors could not figure out what
to do or where to begin, and were often confused. For example, seven
visitors said they were not sure where to start or what to do:
Group A:
Honestly, its way over my head. I’m interested in what’s
happening, I just don’t know what to do and I can’t understand it.
I guess there are Sun Harvesters and Sugar Eaters? There is a
lot of empty space. I keep waiting for something to happen. My
instinct is to ask how do I make it work so I can learn something?
But I can’t make it work. So there are three types of genes?
Despite our efforts to design the exhibit to emphasize
S2 and S3
,
visitors were still extremely confused by what was presented. The
additions of annotations, improving the exhibit, changing to a single
orientation, clearer animations, better assets, and fewer visual elements
only seemed to help bring visitor attention to
S1
. One reason, we
believe, is usability problems made it difficult to convey the last two
stories. That is, visitors did not understand what their role was with
the exhibit and did not feel they could participate with it. The time
spent figuring out their role
(C3)
resulted in visitors leaving the exhibit
before learning anything deeper than aspects of S1.
6D
ISCUSSION
This project was a collaborative effort between several parties in an
effort to develop a functional exhibit for deployment. With real-world
collaborative projects, time and resources are often limited, which
add significant constraints. We worked with exhibit designers, who
have a deep understanding of conveying scientific information to the
public. Our scientific partners at the University of Hawaii ensured the
accuracy and fidelity of the data and their representation. A design and
data-visualization firm from the industry both expedited the process
and offered their own insights into design and development. Every
prototype was tested with real targeted users. The entirety of the project
itself was built over the course of 2016–18. From our significant
evaluation effort over the iterative design process of developing Sea of
Genes, we identify relevant usability issues and areas of future work.
With this paper, we introduced a set of considerations that should be
addressed when designing narrative visualizations for an informal learn-
ing environment. We believe applying these considerations, as we have
shown in this paper, can support future designers attempting to visualize
complex data for museum environments. At the time of development,
we looked over literature [8, 34, 45, 68, 72] for relevant techniques to
apply to develop a successful exhibit under our considerations;
(C1)
free-choice learning environment,
(C2)
public comprehension,
(C3)
readily decipherable, and
(C4)
multi-user friendly. We found limited re-
search that met such an intersection and applied what we could, which
gave some success. With more time and resources we would have
rigorously examined each technique in narrative visualization under
these considerations. However, in a real word setting of developing
an exhibit where time and staffing are constrained, such analysis was
not possible. We studied available narrative frameworks to identify
concepts relevant for our work. We now present a discussion on the
intersection of narrative visualization and museum design.
Storytelling Frameworks:
Segel and Heer [68] present a set of struc-
tures for balancing “designer”-driven vs “visitor”-driven narratives.
Stolper et al. [72] provide an updated discussion of narrative visualiza-
tion strategies with focus on systems with an “author”-driven predefined
narrative. These structures have been applied and shown to be effective
in a variety of situations. However, these structures need to be viewed
and evaluated under our considerations
C1–4
. Testing these struc-
tures and developing frameworks and methodologies that cater towards
“visitor-driven” would aid the museum community. Most analysis has
been on settings (e.g. online journalism) where the user does not have
distractions or free choice. Visitors need to be engaged, and with other
settings like the Exploratorium, exhibits need to support interaction and
multiple users. There is a clear need to aid exhibit designer’s through
further exploration and research into this space.
Here, we examine three structures: Martini Glass, Interactive Presen-
tation, and Drill-down for our museum exhibit design considerations.
The Martini Glass structure for narrative visualization allows for
directing visitor attention explicitly to a set of points before releasing
them with an understanding to make inferences for themselves. How-
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF BATH. Downloaded on May 13,2021 at 22:16:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
DASU ET AL.: SEA OF GENES: A REFLECTION ON VISUALISING METAGENOMIC DATA FOR MUSEUMS 943
ever, with
C1
and evidenced by Boy et al. [9], it is difficult to assume
they will get past the “designer”-driven direct messaging and reach
the exploration part. A study [44] conducted at the Exploratorium
examined if a narrative introduction could better contextualize the ex-
hibit and found it had no real advantage over not-including it. This
introduction was a slideshow presenting where the dataset came from
and its scientific significance, similar to
S3
. Furthermore, under
C4
if the exhibit is at the exploration state, then new visitors are missing
key information that allows them to truly participate, excluding them
of this experience.
Next, the Interactive Presentation structure allows for an individ-
ual to progress through the story when they are ready to do so, and
allows them to repeat steps. This structure, however, does not allow
for multiple people to follow along
(C4)
, in the sense of allowing
any visitor to step forward or backwards, which could disrupt other’s
experience. This constraint could be addressed by transforming the
presentation into a looped animation. The loop could also allow visitors
to follow along back to points where they missed, ideally allowing for
understanding at their pace. However, even with using an animated
loop, as the animation advances new information is continuously pre-
sented. While visitors have started understanding a scene the animation
has progressed, introducing new material to decode, leading to either
confusion or frustration with the exhibit, as seen with Prototype 3.
The Drill-Down approach appears to have the most promise but there
is still a constraint on what you can train a visitor to do and expect
C2
.
The structure allows for telling multiple related stories since it is built
on drilling into sub-stories and adding new details. However, there are
several challenges with this structure when attempting to construct an
exhibit experience with intuitive interactions that can be received by
the majority of visitors. There is the delicate balance of presenting
either new visualizations or materials in the sub-views without over-
whelming a visitor with content. Then there is the additional challenge
of ensuring that the exhibit is accessible to multiple visitors (i.e., if
one visitor is drilling-down, it will not interfere with another visitor’s
experience). Furthermore, depending on the relationships between
stories this structure may struggle since it requires a central story to
reach all other sub-stories. Treating stories as graphs, documenting
what kind of graphs each of these structures can present under
C1-4
is a
direction that could merit great value for presenting in such conditions.
How it handles such stories as Sea of Genes with strong parallel themes
between stories, S1 and S2, is an open question.
Stories as graphs:
Narratives are predominantly linear and are most
effective in conveying a single perspective. According to Spiro and
Jehng [71], “linearity of media is not a problem when the subject matter
being taught is well structured and fairly simple. However, as content
increases in complexity and ill-structuredness, increasingly greater
amounts of important information are lost with linear approaches.”
Can we create visual narratives that permit multiple perspectives and
allow different narrative flows? As Hullman and Diakopolus [35] point
out conveying a point of view requires careful over-emphasis. It is
well known that multiple perspectives are needed to learn complex
topics [18]. We do not have good frameworks for classifying story com-
plexity in a manner that can inform visualizations. A simple narrative
has one causal pathway and is unidirectional. How do we characterize
structures that are more complex? A taxonomy may allow us to develop
visualization techniques. Effective storytelling is subject of interest
to a diverse group of researchers in social sciences, computer science,
and biological sciences. A taxonomy may allow us to map findings
from these disparate domains and develop theories and guidelines. One
approach could be to use graph theory. Here milestones, events, or
information would be nodes and connections or flows represent edges.
A simple story is a unidirectional planar graph with no branches. Let us
call this a basic graph. In our narrative, we had a more general network.
The activities of an individual microbe (e.g., sun-harvester preparing
sugar) is close to a basic graph. The activities of these microbes inter-
acting (e.g., “preparing sugar” & “eating sugar”) creates a more general
graph. Since these connections occurred in parallel and all share the
same time dynamics we have a directed graph that represents
S1
. The
role of genes,
S2
, however, changes the structure of the graph. We
could view the genomics as nested information. Embedded in each
node corresponding to an event (e.g., “preparing sugar”), there was
genomic data (e.g., time of expression & amount of transcript). In our
visualization, we present the embedded data in a narrative that was
occurring in parallel in a separate space. That is, we presented genomic
data in a dynamic histogram on the bottom of the screen separate from
the animation in the center while both update in parallel. Our lim-
ited success in effectively connecting these two stories for the visitors
highlights the need to consider other visualization techniques for these
graphs. In short, we contend that there is a need for a richer taxonomy.
7CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
Reflecting on this endeavor we find there is space for further research
at the intersection of storytelling, data visualization, and informal
learning. The current storytelling structures are effective in many
situations; however, delving deeper into the union of exhibit design and
narrative visualization could extend the current structures, introduce
”visitor”-driven methodologies, or offer adjustments and considerations
to ”author”-driven methodologies.
The process of communicating scientific findings as multiple stories
visually in an informal learning environment brought many challenges.
We need better understanding of how to construct readily decipherable
visual abstractions of a complex science, while maintaining scientific
authenticity and accessibility to the public. If the abstraction was too
simple they didn’t understand or notice the science, when the science
was emphasized they were confused. Communicating multiple related
stories is another challenge. We need to ensure the underlying con-
nections between each story is reflected visually. In our final iteration
each story was embedded in a unique encoding; the community of
microbes S1, a radial histogram S2, and a side panel S3. A visual link
between these three was not explicit enough to be received by visitors.
We had some implicit clues, such as when a visitor touches a microbe
a small radial histogram inside the microbe appears that correlates to
the larger one. At the time of development, designing a visual link was
not considered. Our entry point into the exhibit was the community of
microbes. Yet, from the entry point to the two ancillary visualizations
there isn’t an explicit visual cue for a visitor to follow. We lacked in
our design a visual encoding that functions as a through-line for our
stories. In other words, there should be a visual encoding to reflect a
common theme or consistent element within our stories. Perhaps such
an encoding would help visitors continue to the other stories beyond
the entry point. This requires the stories are not disjoint and have a
minimum of one factor in common.
We reviewed our process for designing Sea of Genes. From our
reflection we believe there is clear value in sharing experiences and
lessons learned. Overall this study supports retrospective analysis of
design work in new cross-disciplinary domains even if the desired
goals were not met. Theories are typically shown to work in their
documented space; however, there is value in reporting how these
theories behave when tested outside of these documented spaces. We
hope our extensive case study will stimulate additional research in
approaches for visualizing complex data from unfamiliar domains
for the public to explore in physical settings including museums and
visitors centers.
A
CKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Elisha Wood-Charlson and Ed DeLong for
sharing the SCOPE dataset and for their time and expertise. We would
also like to thank Eric Rodenbeck, Nicolette Hayes, and Andrew Wong
of Stamen Design for collaborating on the design and development of
the prototypes, and Meghan Kroning, Tamara Kubacki, Katherine Nam-
macher, and Janine Penticuff for evaluation assistance. This research
has been supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation
through grants DRL-1323214, DRL-1322828, and IIS-1528203 and by
the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Foundations.
Fig. 6. (a) The design process of transforming the microbes into the characters of our stories over all prototypes. Initially we used icons to represent
each, in the further iterations we used sprites. The final image depicts SAR116, Cyanophages, and Prochlorococcus in their final iterated state. (b)
The card design changes between Prototype 1 to Prototype 3. (c) Various design iterations of the side panel from Prototype 2 to Prototype 3.
genes under “Preparing to Make Sugar”). Each gene had an activity
range and was displayed as a dynamic histogram; length of the bar was
determined by the normalized amount of transcript in the sample. So,
through the course of 24 hours different areas of the circle would have
waves of gene activity, similar to an equalizer.
Part of the success of conveying
S1
in the previous prototype may
have been a result of the interactivity we provided visitors, i.e, the
ability to add microbes to the animation. We chose to shift the story the
interaction emphasized from
S1
to
S2
. Rather than adding a microbe,
tapping on the revamped card (Figure 5b) would highlight all microbes
of that type and show their gene activity, Figure 5c.
Prototype 3 was evaluated as part of a larger summative evaluation
conducted by an external museum evaluation group, Inverness Research.
This evaluation sought to find the key understandings that visitors came
away with from their interaction with the exhibit. While conducting the
study, Inverness found that visitors were not spending sufficient time at
the exhibit and therefore would not be able answer the questions in their
exit interview. So, they focused their efforts on mediated interviews,
in which visiting groups were recruited to interact with the exhibit
and answer questions immediately afterwards. A total of 13 mediated
interviews were conducted. The interview results reported 2 of the
13 groups understood that scientists collected data while on boats,
and that something about what they collected is represented on the
screen of the table. However, there was no clear evidence that visitors
understood that the data represented was gene expression. Furthermore,
the mediated interviews indicated that visitors could not figure out what
to do or where to begin, and were often confused. For example, seven
visitors said they were not sure where to start or what to do:
Group A:
Honestly, its way over my head. I’m interested in what’s
happening, I just don’t know what to do and I can’t understand it.
I guess there are Sun Harvesters and Sugar Eaters? There is a
lot of empty space. I keep waiting for something to happen. My
instinct is to ask how do I make it work so I can learn something?
But I can’t make it work. So there are three types of genes?
Despite our efforts to design the exhibit to emphasize
S2 and S3
,
visitors were still extremely confused by what was presented. The
additions of annotations, improving the exhibit, changing to a single
orientation, clearer animations, better assets, and fewer visual elements
only seemed to help bring visitor attention to
S1
. One reason, we
believe, is usability problems made it difficult to convey the last two
stories. That is, visitors did not understand what their role was with
the exhibit and did not feel they could participate with it. The time
spent figuring out their role
(C3)
resulted in visitors leaving the exhibit
before learning anything deeper than aspects of S1.
6D
ISCUSSION
This project was a collaborative effort between several parties in an
effort to develop a functional exhibit for deployment. With real-world
collaborative projects, time and resources are often limited, which
add significant constraints. We worked with exhibit designers, who
have a deep understanding of conveying scientific information to the
public. Our scientific partners at the University of Hawaii ensured the
accuracy and fidelity of the data and their representation. A design and
data-visualization firm from the industry both expedited the process
and offered their own insights into design and development. Every
prototype was tested with real targeted users. The entirety of the project
itself was built over the course of 2016–18. From our significant
evaluation effort over the iterative design process of developing Sea of
Genes, we identify relevant usability issues and areas of future work.
With this paper, we introduced a set of considerations that should be
addressed when designing narrative visualizations for an informal learn-
ing environment. We believe applying these considerations, as we have
shown in this paper, can support future designers attempting to visualize
complex data for museum environments. At the time of development,
we looked over literature [8, 34, 45, 68, 72] for relevant techniques to
apply to develop a successful exhibit under our considerations;
(C1)
free-choice learning environment,
(C2)
public comprehension,
(C3)
readily decipherable, and
(C4)
multi-user friendly. We found limited re-
search that met such an intersection and applied what we could, which
gave some success. With more time and resources we would have
rigorously examined each technique in narrative visualization under
these considerations. However, in a real word setting of developing
an exhibit where time and staffing are constrained, such analysis was
not possible. We studied available narrative frameworks to identify
concepts relevant for our work. We now present a discussion on the
intersection of narrative visualization and museum design.
Storytelling Frameworks:
Segel and Heer [68] present a set of struc-
tures for balancing “designer”-driven vs “visitor”-driven narratives.
Stolper et al. [72] provide an updated discussion of narrative visualiza-
tion strategies with focus on systems with an “author”-driven predefined
narrative. These structures have been applied and shown to be effective
in a variety of situations. However, these structures need to be viewed
and evaluated under our considerations
C1–4
. Testing these struc-
tures and developing frameworks and methodologies that cater towards
“visitor-driven” would aid the museum community. Most analysis has
been on settings (e.g. online journalism) where the user does not have
distractions or free choice. Visitors need to be engaged, and with other
settings like the Exploratorium, exhibits need to support interaction and
multiple users. There is a clear need to aid exhibit designer’s through
further exploration and research into this space.
Here, we examine three structures: Martini Glass, Interactive Presen-
tation, and Drill-down for our museum exhibit design considerations.
The Martini Glass structure for narrative visualization allows for
directing visitor attention explicitly to a set of points before releasing
them with an understanding to make inferences for themselves. How-
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF BATH. Downloaded on May 13,2021 at 22:16:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
944 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS, VOL. 27, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2021
[45]
J. Ma, I. Liao, K.-L. Ma, and J. Frazier. Living Liquid: Design and
evaluation of an exploratory visualization tool for museum visitors. IEEE
Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12):2799–2808,
2012. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2012.244
[46]
J. Ma, K.-L. Ma, and J. Frazier. Decoding a complex visualization in a
science museum–an empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization
and Computer Graphics, 26(1):472–481, 2019. doi:
10.1109/TVCG.2019.
2934401
[47]
K.-L. Ma, I. Liao, J. Frazier, H. Hauser, and H.-N. Kostis. Scientific story-
telling using visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications,
32(1):12–19, 2011. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2012.24
[48]
R. E. Mayer and R. Moreno. A split-attention effect in multimedia learning:
Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90(2):312–320, 1998. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.90.
2.312
[49]
R. Moreno and R. Mayer. Interactive multimodal learning environments.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(3):309–326, 2007. doi:
10.1007/s10648
-007-9047-2
[50]
R. Moreno, R. E. Mayer, H. A. Spires, and J. C. Lester. The case for
social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply
when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and
Instruction, 19(2):177–213, 2001. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1902 02
[51]
J. B. Morrison, B. Tversky, and M. Betrancourt. Animation: Does it
facilitate learning. Technical Report SS-00-04, Association for the Ad-
vancement of Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, California, 2000.
[52]
Science On a Sphere.
https://sos.noaa.gov/What_is_SOS/
. Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
[53]
National Research Council. Learning science in informal environments:
People, places, and pursuits. National Academies Press, 2009.
[54]
NGSS. Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The
National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013.
[55]
Zoo in you.
https://omsi.edu/exhibitions/zoo-in-you/
. Ore-
gon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI).
[56]
E. A. Ottesen, C. R. Young, S. M. Gifford, J. M. Eppley, R. Marin, S. C.
Schuster, C. A. Scholin, and E. F. DeLong. Multispecies diel transcrip-
tional oscillations in open ocean heterotrophic bacterial assemblages. Sci-
ence, 345(6193):207–212, 2014. doi: 10.1126/science.1252476
[57]
S. E. Palmer. Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. MIT press,
1999.
[58]
S. Perkins and R. DeSalle. The secret world inside you.
https://www.
amnh.org/exhibitions/the-secret-world-inside-you/
. Amer-
ican Museum of Natural History.
[59]
R. Ploetzner and R. Lowe. A systematic characterisation of expository
animations. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3):781–794, 2012. doi:
10.
1016/j.chb.2011.12.001
[60]
B. Potvin, C. Swindells, M. Tory, and M.-A. Storey. Comparing horizontal
and vertical surfaces for a collaborative design task. Advances in Human-
Computer Interaction, 2012(6):10 pages, 2012. doi: 10.1155/2012/137686
[61]
Z. W. Pylyshyn and R. W. Storm. Tracking multiple independent targets:
Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3(3):179–197,
1988. doi: 10.1163/156856888X00122
[62]
P. A. Rauschnabel and A. C. Ahuvia. Youre so lovable: Anthropomor-
phism and brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 21(5):372–395,
2014. doi: 10.1057/bm.2014.14
[63]
Y. Rogers and S. Lindley. Collaborating around vertical and horizontal
large interactive displays: which way is best? Interacting with Computers,
16(6):1133–1152, 09 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2004.07.008
[64]
J. Rounds. Storytelling in science exhibits. Exhibitionist, 21(2):40–43,
2002.
[65]
R. C. Schank. Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. Northwestern
University Press, 1995.
[66]
H. Schmidt, U. Hinrichs, A. Dunning, and S. Carpendale. memory
[en]code Building a Collective Memory within a Tabletop Installation.
In Computational Aesthetics in Graphics, Visualization, and Imaging.
The Eurographics Association, Aire-la-Ville, Switzerland, 2007. doi:
10.
2312/COMPAESTH/COMPAESTH07/135-142
[67]
W. Schnotz, J. B
¨
ockheler, and H. Grzondziel. Individual and co-operative
learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychol-
ogy of Education, 14(2):245–265, 1999. doi: 10.1007/BF03172968
[68]
E. Segel and J. Heer. Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data.
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6):1139–
1148, 2010. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2010.179
[69]
D. Smit, T. Grah, M. Murer, V. van Rheden, and M. Tscheligi. Macroscope:
First-person perspective in physical scale models. In Proceedings of the
Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied
Interaction, pp. 253–259. ACM, New York, NY, 2018. doi:
10.1145/
3173225
[70]
A. N. Spiegel, J. McQuillan, P. Halpin, C. Matuk, and J. Diamond. Engag-
ing teenagers with science through comics. Research in Science Education,
43(6):2309–2326, 2013. doi: 10.1007/s11165-013-9358-x
[71]
R. Spiro and J. Jehng. Cognitive flexibility, random access instruction and
hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multi-dimensional
traversal of complex subject matter. Cognition, Education, and Multime-
dia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology, pp. 163–205, 1990.
[72]
C. D. Stolper, B. Lee, N. H. Riche, and J. Stasko. Emerging and recurring
data-driven storytelling techniques: Analysis of a curated collection of
recent stories. Technical report, Microsoft Research, Washington, USA,
2016.
[73]
B. Tversky, J. B. Morrison, and M. Betrancourt. Animation: Can it
facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4):247–
262, 2002. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017
REFERENCES
[1]
S. Ainsworth. How do animations influence learning. In Recent innova-
tions in educational technology that facilitate student learning, pp. 37–67.
Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 2008.
[2] S. Allen. Finding significance. Exploratorium, 2004.
[3]
F. O. Aylward, D. Boeuf, D. R. Mende, E. M. Wood-Charlson, A. Vislova,
J. M. Eppley, A. E. Romano, and E. F. DeLong. Diel cycling and long-
term persistence of viruses in the ocean’s euphotic zone. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 114(43):11446–11451, 2017. doi:
10.
1073/pnas.1714821114
[4]
F. O. Aylward, J. M. Eppley, J. M. Smith, F. P. Chavez, C. A. Scholin,
and E. F. DeLong. Microbial community transcriptional networks are
conserved in three domains at ocean basin scales. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 112(17):5443–5448, 2015. doi:
10.1073/
pnas.1502883112
[5]
L. Bedford. Storytelling: The real work of museums. Curator: The
Museum Journal, 44(1):27–34, 2001. doi:
10.1111/j.2151-6952.2001.tb00027.
x
[6]
P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, M. A. Feder, et al. Learning science
in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits, vol. 140. National
Academies Press Washington, DC, 2009. doi: 10.17226/12190
[7]
S. Berney and M. B
´
etrancourt. Does animation enhance learning? a meta-
analysis. Computers & Education, 101:150–167, 2016. doi:
10.1016/j.
compedu.2016.06.005
[8]
F. Block, M. S. Horn, B. C. Phillips, J. Diamond, E. M. Evans, and C. Shen.
The DeepTree exhibit: Visualizing the tree of life to facilitate informal
learning. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,
18(12):2789–2798, 2012. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2012.272
[9]
J. Boy, F. Detienne, and J.-D. Fekete. Storytelling in information visual-
izations: Does it engage users to explore data? In Proceedings of the ACM
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1449–1458.
ACM, New York, NY, 2015. doi: 10.1145/2702123
[10]
J. S. Bruner. Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press,
2009.
[11]
C. Bryan, K.-L. Ma, and J. Woodring. Temporal summary images: An ap-
proach to narrative visualization via interactive annotation generation and
placement. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,
23(1):511–520, 2017. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598876
[12]
Y.-Y. Chan and H. Qu. Finavistory: Using narrative visualization to explain
social and economic relationships in financial news. In International
Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing, pp. 32–39. IEEE, New
York, NY, 2016. doi: 10.1109/BIGCOMP.2016.7425798
[13]
L.-J. ChanLin. Animation to teach students of different knowledge levels.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(3):166–175, 1998.
[14]
N. R. Council. The new science of metagenomics: Revealing the secrets
of our microbial planet. National Academies Press, 2007.
[15]
P. Davis, M. Horn, L. Schrementi, F. Block, B. Phillips, E. M. Evans,
J. Diamond, and C. Shen. Going deep: Supporting collaborative explo-
ration of evolution in natural history museums. In Proceedings of the
Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 1, pp.
153–160. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Madison, WI,
2013. doi: 10.22318/cscl2013.1.153
[16]
N. M. Dudukovic, E. J. Marsh, and B. Tversky. Telling a story or telling it
straight: The effects of entertaining versus accurate retellings on memory.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(2):125–143, 2004. doi:
10.1002/acp.953
[17]
Invisible you-the human microbiome exhibition.
http://www.edenproject.com/visit/whats-here/
invisible-you-the-human-microbiome-exhibition
. Eden
project.
[18]
E. Einsiedel. The challenges of translating genomic knowledge. Clinical
Genetics, 70(5):433–437, 2006. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2006.00682.x
[19]
Electron — Build cross platform desktop apps with JavaScript, HTML,
and CSS. https://electronjs.org/.
[20]
J. H. Falk and L. D. Dierking. Learning from museums: Visitor experiences
and the making of meaning. Altamira Press, 2000.
[21]
J. H. Falk and L. D. Dierking. The museum experience revisited. Routledge,
2016.
[22]
E. L. Ferguson and M. Hegarty. Learning with real machines or dia-
grams: Application of knowledge to real-world problems. Cognition and
Instruction, 13(1):129–160, 1995. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1301 4
[23]
T. Geller. Interactive tabletop exhibits in museums and galleries. IEEE
Computer Graphics and Applications, 26(5):6–11, 2006. doi:
10.1109/MCG.
2006.111
[24]
N. Gershon and W. Page. What storytelling can do for information vi-
sualization. Communications of the ACM, 44(8):31–37, 2001. doi:
10.
1145/381641
[25]
P. Ginns. Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction,
15(4):313–331, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001
[26]
D. P. Groth and K. Streefkerk. Provenance and annotation for visual
exploration systems. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer
Graphics, 12(6):1500–1510, 2006. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2006.101
[27]
J. Heer, F. B. Vi
´
egas, and M. Wattenberg. Voyagers and voyeurs: Support-
ing asynchronous collaborative information visualization. In Proceedings
of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp.
1029–1038. ACM, New York, NY, 2007. doi: 10.1145/1240624
[28]
M. Hegarty, S. Kriz, and C. Cate. The roles of mental animations and
external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and
Instruction, 21(4):209–249, 2003. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2104 1
[29]
G. Hein. Traits of life: A collection of life science exhibits. Technical
report, Exploratorium, San Francisco, CA, mar 2003.
[30]
U. Hinrichs and S. Carpendale. Gestures in the wild: Studying multi-
touch gesture sequences on interactive tabletop exhibits. In Proceedings
of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p.
30233032. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
2011. doi: 10.1145/1978942.1979391
[31]
U. Hinrichs, H. Schmidt, and S. Carpendale. EMDialog: Bringing infor-
mation visualization into the museum. IEEE Transactions on Visualization
and Computer Graphics, 14(6):1181–1188, 2008. doi:
10.1109/TVCG.2008.
127
[32]
E. Hornecker. “I dont understand it either, but it is cool”–Visitor inter-
actions with a multi-touch table in a museum. In IEEE International
Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems, pp. 113–
120. IEEE, New York, NY, 2008. doi: 10.1109/TABLETOP.2008.4660193
[33]
E. Hornecker, P. Marshall, and Y. Rogers. From entry to access: how
shareability comes about. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing
Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, pp. 328–342. ACM, New York, NY,
2007. doi: 10.1145/1314161.1314191
[34]
C.-H. Hsueh, J. Chu, K.-L. Ma, J. Ma, and J. Frazier. Fostering com-
parisons: Designing an interactive exhibit that visualizes marine animal
behaviors. In IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium, pp. 259–263. IEEE,
New York, NY, 2016. doi: 10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2016.7465282
[35]
J. Hullman and N. Diakopoulos. Visualization rhetoric: Framing effects in
narrative visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer
Graphics, 17(12):2231–2240, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2011.255
[36]
P. Isenberg and S. Carpendale. Interactive tree comparison for co-located
collaborative information visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualiza-
tion and Computer Graphics, 13(6):1232–1239, 2007. doi:
10.1109/TVCG.
2007.70568
[37]
S. Kalyuga. Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: An ef-
fect of learner prior knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3):852–
861, 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.02.018
[38]
R. Kosara and J. Mackinlay. Storytelling: The next step for visualization.
Computer, 46(5):44–50, 2013. doi: 10.1109/MC.2013.36
[39]
M. Krzywinski, J. Schein, I. Birol, J. Connors, R. Gascoyne, D. Horsman,
S. J. Jones, and M. A. Marra. Circos: An information aesthetic for
comparative genomics. Genome Research, 19(9):1639–1645, 2009. doi:
10.1101/gr.092759.109
[40]
P. Langfelder and S. Horvath. Wgcna: An r package for weighted cor-
relation network analysis. BMC Bioinformatics, 9(1):559, 2008. doi:
10.
1186/1471-2105-9-559
[41]
A. D. Lanie, T. E. Jayaratne, J. P. Sheldon, S. L. Kardia, E. S. Anderson,
M. Feldbaum, and E. M. Petty. Exploring the public understanding of
basic genetic concepts. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13(4):305–320,
2004. doi: 10.1023/B:JOGC.0000035524.66944.6d
[42]
B. Lee, N. H. Riche, P. Isenberg, and S. Carpendale. More than telling
a story: Transforming data into visually shared stories. IEEE Computer
Graphics and Applications, 35(5):84–90, 2015. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2015.99
[43]
J. Ma. Visitors prior knowledge and interests in marine microbes and
metagenomics. Technical report, Exploratorium, San Francisco, CA,
jan 2011. ”https://www.exploratorium.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/visitors-
prior-marine.pdf”.
[44]
J. Ma. Engaging museum visitors with scientific data through visualization:
A comparison of three strategies. In Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, pp. 1–18. The American Educational
Research Association, Washington, DC, 2013.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF BATH. Downloaded on May 13,2021 at 22:16:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
DASU ET AL.: SEA OF GENES: A REFLECTION ON VISUALISING METAGENOMIC DATA FOR MUSEUMS 945
[45]
J. Ma, I. Liao, K.-L. Ma, and J. Frazier. Living Liquid: Design and
evaluation of an exploratory visualization tool for museum visitors. IEEE
Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12):2799–2808,
2012. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2012.244
[46]
J. Ma, K.-L. Ma, and J. Frazier. Decoding a complex visualization in a
science museum–an empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization
and Computer Graphics, 26(1):472–481, 2019. doi:
10.1109/TVCG.2019.
2934401
[47]
K.-L. Ma, I. Liao, J. Frazier, H. Hauser, and H.-N. Kostis. Scientific story-
telling using visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications,
32(1):12–19, 2011. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2012.24
[48]
R. E. Mayer and R. Moreno. A split-attention effect in multimedia learning:
Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90(2):312–320, 1998. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.90.
2.312
[49]
R. Moreno and R. Mayer. Interactive multimodal learning environments.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(3):309–326, 2007. doi:
10.1007/s10648
-007-9047-2
[50]
R. Moreno, R. E. Mayer, H. A. Spires, and J. C. Lester. The case for
social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply
when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and
Instruction, 19(2):177–213, 2001. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1902 02
[51]
J. B. Morrison, B. Tversky, and M. Betrancourt. Animation: Does it
facilitate learning. Technical Report SS-00-04, Association for the Ad-
vancement of Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, California, 2000.
[52]
Science On a Sphere.
https://sos.noaa.gov/What_is_SOS/
. Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
[53]
National Research Council. Learning science in informal environments:
People, places, and pursuits. National Academies Press, 2009.
[54]
NGSS. Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The
National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013.
[55]
Zoo in you.
https://omsi.edu/exhibitions/zoo-in-you/
. Ore-
gon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI).
[56]
E. A. Ottesen, C. R. Young, S. M. Gifford, J. M. Eppley, R. Marin, S. C.
Schuster, C. A. Scholin, and E. F. DeLong. Multispecies diel transcrip-
tional oscillations in open ocean heterotrophic bacterial assemblages. Sci-
ence, 345(6193):207–212, 2014. doi: 10.1126/science.1252476
[57]
S. E. Palmer. Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. MIT press,
1999.
[58]
S. Perkins and R. DeSalle. The secret world inside you.
https://www.
amnh.org/exhibitions/the-secret-world-inside-you/
. Amer-
ican Museum of Natural History.
[59]
R. Ploetzner and R. Lowe. A systematic characterisation of expository
animations. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3):781–794, 2012. doi:
10.
1016/j.chb.2011.12.001
[60]
B. Potvin, C. Swindells, M. Tory, and M.-A. Storey. Comparing horizontal
and vertical surfaces for a collaborative design task. Advances in Human-
Computer Interaction, 2012(6):10 pages, 2012. doi: 10.1155/2012/137686
[61]
Z. W. Pylyshyn and R. W. Storm. Tracking multiple independent targets:
Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3(3):179–197,
1988. doi: 10.1163/156856888X00122
[62]
P. A. Rauschnabel and A. C. Ahuvia. Youre so lovable: Anthropomor-
phism and brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 21(5):372–395,
2014. doi: 10.1057/bm.2014.14
[63]
Y. Rogers and S. Lindley. Collaborating around vertical and horizontal
large interactive displays: which way is best? Interacting with Computers,
16(6):1133–1152, 09 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2004.07.008
[64]
J. Rounds. Storytelling in science exhibits. Exhibitionist, 21(2):40–43,
2002.
[65]
R. C. Schank. Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. Northwestern
University Press, 1995.
[66]
H. Schmidt, U. Hinrichs, A. Dunning, and S. Carpendale. memory
[en]code Building a Collective Memory within a Tabletop Installation.
In Computational Aesthetics in Graphics, Visualization, and Imaging.
The Eurographics Association, Aire-la-Ville, Switzerland, 2007. doi:
10.
2312/COMPAESTH/COMPAESTH07/135-142
[67]
W. Schnotz, J. B
¨
ockheler, and H. Grzondziel. Individual and co-operative
learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychol-
ogy of Education, 14(2):245–265, 1999. doi: 10.1007/BF03172968
[68]
E. Segel and J. Heer. Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data.
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6):1139–
1148, 2010. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2010.179
[69]
D. Smit, T. Grah, M. Murer, V. van Rheden, and M. Tscheligi. Macroscope:
First-person perspective in physical scale models. In Proceedings of the
Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied
Interaction, pp. 253–259. ACM, New York, NY, 2018. doi:
10.1145/
3173225
[70]
A. N. Spiegel, J. McQuillan, P. Halpin, C. Matuk, and J. Diamond. Engag-
ing teenagers with science through comics. Research in Science Education,
43(6):2309–2326, 2013. doi: 10.1007/s11165-013-9358-x
[71]
R. Spiro and J. Jehng. Cognitive flexibility, random access instruction and
hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multi-dimensional
traversal of complex subject matter. Cognition, Education, and Multime-
dia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology, pp. 163–205, 1990.
[72]
C. D. Stolper, B. Lee, N. H. Riche, and J. Stasko. Emerging and recurring
data-driven storytelling techniques: Analysis of a curated collection of
recent stories. Technical report, Microsoft Research, Washington, USA,
2016.
[73]
B. Tversky, J. B. Morrison, and M. Betrancourt. Animation: Can it
facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4):247–
262, 2002. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017
REFERENCES
[1]
S. Ainsworth. How do animations influence learning. In Recent innova-
tions in educational technology that facilitate student learning, pp. 37–67.
Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 2008.
[2] S. Allen. Finding significance. Exploratorium, 2004.
[3]
F. O. Aylward, D. Boeuf, D. R. Mende, E. M. Wood-Charlson, A. Vislova,
J. M. Eppley, A. E. Romano, and E. F. DeLong. Diel cycling and long-
term persistence of viruses in the ocean’s euphotic zone. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 114(43):11446–11451, 2017. doi:
10.
1073/pnas.1714821114
[4]
F. O. Aylward, J. M. Eppley, J. M. Smith, F. P. Chavez, C. A. Scholin,
and E. F. DeLong. Microbial community transcriptional networks are
conserved in three domains at ocean basin scales. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 112(17):5443–5448, 2015. doi:
10.1073/
pnas.1502883112
[5]
L. Bedford. Storytelling: The real work of museums. Curator: The
Museum Journal, 44(1):27–34, 2001. doi:
10.1111/j.2151-6952.2001.tb00027.
x
[6]
P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, M. A. Feder, et al. Learning science
in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits, vol. 140. National
Academies Press Washington, DC, 2009. doi: 10.17226/12190
[7]
S. Berney and M. B
´
etrancourt. Does animation enhance learning? a meta-
analysis. Computers & Education, 101:150–167, 2016. doi:
10.1016/j.
compedu.2016.06.005
[8]
F. Block, M. S. Horn, B. C. Phillips, J. Diamond, E. M. Evans, and C. Shen.
The DeepTree exhibit: Visualizing the tree of life to facilitate informal
learning. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,
18(12):2789–2798, 2012. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2012.272
[9]
J. Boy, F. Detienne, and J.-D. Fekete. Storytelling in information visual-
izations: Does it engage users to explore data? In Proceedings of the ACM
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1449–1458.
ACM, New York, NY, 2015. doi: 10.1145/2702123
[10]
J. S. Bruner. Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press,
2009.
[11]
C. Bryan, K.-L. Ma, and J. Woodring. Temporal summary images: An ap-
proach to narrative visualization via interactive annotation generation and
placement. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,
23(1):511–520, 2017. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598876
[12]
Y.-Y. Chan and H. Qu. Finavistory: Using narrative visualization to explain
social and economic relationships in financial news. In International
Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing, pp. 32–39. IEEE, New
York, NY, 2016. doi: 10.1109/BIGCOMP.2016.7425798
[13]
L.-J. ChanLin. Animation to teach students of different knowledge levels.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(3):166–175, 1998.
[14]
N. R. Council. The new science of metagenomics: Revealing the secrets
of our microbial planet. National Academies Press, 2007.
[15]
P. Davis, M. Horn, L. Schrementi, F. Block, B. Phillips, E. M. Evans,
J. Diamond, and C. Shen. Going deep: Supporting collaborative explo-
ration of evolution in natural history museums. In Proceedings of the
Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 1, pp.
153–160. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Madison, WI,
2013. doi: 10.22318/cscl2013.1.153
[16]
N. M. Dudukovic, E. J. Marsh, and B. Tversky. Telling a story or telling it
straight: The effects of entertaining versus accurate retellings on memory.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(2):125–143, 2004. doi:
10.1002/acp.953
[17]
Invisible you-the human microbiome exhibition.
http://www.edenproject.com/visit/whats-here/
invisible-you-the-human-microbiome-exhibition
. Eden
project.
[18]
E. Einsiedel. The challenges of translating genomic knowledge. Clinical
Genetics, 70(5):433–437, 2006. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2006.00682.x
[19]
Electron — Build cross platform desktop apps with JavaScript, HTML,
and CSS. https://electronjs.org/.
[20]
J. H. Falk and L. D. Dierking. Learning from museums: Visitor experiences
and the making of meaning. Altamira Press, 2000.
[21]
J. H. Falk and L. D. Dierking. The museum experience revisited. Routledge,
2016.
[22]
E. L. Ferguson and M. Hegarty. Learning with real machines or dia-
grams: Application of knowledge to real-world problems. Cognition and
Instruction, 13(1):129–160, 1995. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1301 4
[23]
T. Geller. Interactive tabletop exhibits in museums and galleries. IEEE
Computer Graphics and Applications, 26(5):6–11, 2006. doi:
10.1109/MCG.
2006.111
[24]
N. Gershon and W. Page. What storytelling can do for information vi-
sualization. Communications of the ACM, 44(8):31–37, 2001. doi:
10.
1145/381641
[25]
P. Ginns. Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction,
15(4):313–331, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001
[26]
D. P. Groth and K. Streefkerk. Provenance and annotation for visual
exploration systems. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer
Graphics, 12(6):1500–1510, 2006. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2006.101
[27]
J. Heer, F. B. Vi
´
egas, and M. Wattenberg. Voyagers and voyeurs: Support-
ing asynchronous collaborative information visualization. In Proceedings
of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp.
1029–1038. ACM, New York, NY, 2007. doi: 10.1145/1240624
[28]
M. Hegarty, S. Kriz, and C. Cate. The roles of mental animations and
external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and
Instruction, 21(4):209–249, 2003. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2104 1
[29]
G. Hein. Traits of life: A collection of life science exhibits. Technical
report, Exploratorium, San Francisco, CA, mar 2003.
[30]
U. Hinrichs and S. Carpendale. Gestures in the wild: Studying multi-
touch gesture sequences on interactive tabletop exhibits. In Proceedings
of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p.
30233032. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
2011. doi: 10.1145/1978942.1979391
[31]
U. Hinrichs, H. Schmidt, and S. Carpendale. EMDialog: Bringing infor-
mation visualization into the museum. IEEE Transactions on Visualization
and Computer Graphics, 14(6):1181–1188, 2008. doi:
10.1109/TVCG.2008.
127
[32]
E. Hornecker. “I dont understand it either, but it is cool”–Visitor inter-
actions with a multi-touch table in a museum. In IEEE International
Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems, pp. 113–
120. IEEE, New York, NY, 2008. doi: 10.1109/TABLETOP.2008.4660193
[33]
E. Hornecker, P. Marshall, and Y. Rogers. From entry to access: how
shareability comes about. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing
Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, pp. 328–342. ACM, New York, NY,
2007. doi: 10.1145/1314161.1314191
[34]
C.-H. Hsueh, J. Chu, K.-L. Ma, J. Ma, and J. Frazier. Fostering com-
parisons: Designing an interactive exhibit that visualizes marine animal
behaviors. In IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium, pp. 259–263. IEEE,
New York, NY, 2016. doi: 10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2016.7465282
[35]
J. Hullman and N. Diakopoulos. Visualization rhetoric: Framing effects in
narrative visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer
Graphics, 17(12):2231–2240, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2011.255
[36]
P. Isenberg and S. Carpendale. Interactive tree comparison for co-located
collaborative information visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualiza-
tion and Computer Graphics, 13(6):1232–1239, 2007. doi:
10.1109/TVCG.
2007.70568
[37]
S. Kalyuga. Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: An ef-
fect of learner prior knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3):852–
861, 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.02.018
[38]
R. Kosara and J. Mackinlay. Storytelling: The next step for visualization.
Computer, 46(5):44–50, 2013. doi: 10.1109/MC.2013.36
[39]
M. Krzywinski, J. Schein, I. Birol, J. Connors, R. Gascoyne, D. Horsman,
S. J. Jones, and M. A. Marra. Circos: An information aesthetic for
comparative genomics. Genome Research, 19(9):1639–1645, 2009. doi:
10.1101/gr.092759.109
[40]
P. Langfelder and S. Horvath. Wgcna: An r package for weighted cor-
relation network analysis. BMC Bioinformatics, 9(1):559, 2008. doi:
10.
1186/1471-2105-9-559
[41]
A. D. Lanie, T. E. Jayaratne, J. P. Sheldon, S. L. Kardia, E. S. Anderson,
M. Feldbaum, and E. M. Petty. Exploring the public understanding of
basic genetic concepts. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13(4):305–320,
2004. doi: 10.1023/B:JOGC.0000035524.66944.6d
[42]
B. Lee, N. H. Riche, P. Isenberg, and S. Carpendale. More than telling
a story: Transforming data into visually shared stories. IEEE Computer
Graphics and Applications, 35(5):84–90, 2015. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2015.99
[43]
J. Ma. Visitors prior knowledge and interests in marine microbes and
metagenomics. Technical report, Exploratorium, San Francisco, CA,
jan 2011. ”https://www.exploratorium.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/visitors-
prior-marine.pdf”.
[44]
J. Ma. Engaging museum visitors with scientific data through visualization:
A comparison of three strategies. In Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, pp. 1–18. The American Educational
Research Association, Washington, DC, 2013.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF BATH. Downloaded on May 13,2021 at 22:16:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
